Results of Astrological Rectification Experiment
a
formal test, but recently on the newsgroup alt.astrology a test of one
astrologer's claims was completed.
The test involved an astrological procedure called "rectification". This
is an attempt, given a subject's birth time that may not be completely
accurate, to examine important dates in that person's life and produce
a birth time that better explains, in astrological terms, the timing of
the important events.
The astrologer in the test was Ray Murphy, a self-proclaimed expert of
17 years in the field of rectification. The skeptic in the tests was
Tom Kerr.
Procedure
---------
Tom furnished Ray the following information:
1) The subject's accurate birth location.
2) The subject's birth time with a deliberately-introduced error of
up to three hours.
3) The dates of at least 15 important dates in the subject's life.
Ray used this information to produce:
1) A specific, so-called "speculative" birth time.
Ray claimed that the speculative birth time he produced would be within
15 minutes of the recorded birth time in at least 50% of trials.
Two trials were conducted. Here are the data furnished to Ray:
(Trial 1, from article <tu9snsh...@news.supernews.com>)
Toothache- 9/09/01
Dentist visit 9/14/01
Divorced- 8/23/01
Doctor visit- 8/11/01
Promotion- 9/10/01
Career change- 1/22/01
Moving house- 8/20/96
Career change- 7/15/97
Illness- 7/22/89
Grandfathers birthday- 5/26/1904
Sisters birthday- 4/12/75
Partners (ex-wife) birthday- 8/30/50
Fathers birthday- 5/30/32
Mothers birthday- 11/23/38
Brothers birthday- 11/14/64
Partner (current girlfriend) birthday- 12/14/61
These are in "US format", i.e., month/day/year.
This person's birth date is 3rd/4th July 1960 - the range of dates is due
to the 3-hour window of birth time I said I would provide.
The birth certificate time is between 10:55pm (07/03/1960) and 1:55am
(07/04/1960).
Place of birth is Montgomery, Alabama, USA (32N22, 86W18).
(Trial 2, from article <tukl1sj...@news.supernews.com>)
Date of birth is between 8:20am and 11:20am on 21 October 1940, place of
birth is Fitzwilliam, Yorks, UK (53 degrees 26 minutes north; 01
degrees 20 minutes west).
Events:
24 April 1954 - first press report about the person
6 July 1959 - big step forward in career
16 June 1962 - became established in chosen career
3 June 1963 - made first huge and well-recognised contribution
29 August 1963 - forged a significant partnership twice
2 October 1963 - was accepted as a professional
4 June 1964 - nationally recognised
24 October 1964 - made a name overseas
6 January 1965 - made a significant contribution which was unexpected
8 June 1967 - Became famous for doing well and was infamously disciplined
for doing well.
15 June 1968 - was undefeated
24 Januray 1974 - did something that this person has not been able to do
since
15 May 1975 - achieved something that only two people had previously done
2 August 1977 - achieved something that no other English person has ever
done
11 August 1977 - became the 18th person to join an illustrious list
18 January 1978 - became the boss
2 July 1981 - Did something for the 100th time and was recognized for it
20 May 1982 - did something that no one else had ever done before
12 September 1986 - changed career
Here are Ray's answers:
(Trial 1, article <3beac...@news.chariot.net.au>)
RM: My answer for the first experiment is
01:35:00 ........... 24.41 Taurus Ascendant.
(Trial 2, article <3beab...@news.chariot.net.au>)
This person's birth time HAD to be very close to 09:15:00 BST
(08:15:00 GMT)
And here are the actual birth times:
(Trial 1, article <tumthp2...@news.supernews.com>)
DOB is 3 July 1960 10:56 pm
(Trial 2, article <tumt8fk...@news.supernews.com>)
The birthdata, according to the guy's autobiography, is 11am on 21
October, 1940, Fitzwilliam, Yorks, UK (BST).
Results
-------
In the first trial, Ray's speculative birth time differed from the
actual birth time by 159 minutes.
In the second trial, Ray's speculative birth time differed from the
actual birth time by 105 minutes.
Neither trial supported Ray's claim.
Peter F. Curran
a...@shell3.shore.net (a) writes:
>It's not often that astrologers are willing to subject their claims to a
>formal test, but recently on the newsgroup alt.astrology a test of one
>astrologer's claims was completed.
>
>The test involved an astrological procedure called "rectification". This
>is an attempt, given a subject's birth time that may not be completely
>accurate, to examine important dates in that person's life and produce
>a birth time that better explains, in astrological terms, the timing of
>the important events.
>
>The astrologer in the test was Ray Murphy, a self-proclaimed expert of
>17 years in the field of rectification. The skeptic in the tests was
>Tom Kerr.
[snip]
Ha! You should calculate the odds that blind luck would
have done better than Ray! :^)
--
Peter F Curran
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
"If you paid for your operating system, you probably
paid too much for your operating system."
**** USE EMAIL ADDRESS IN ORG LINE TO REPLY ****
Ray Murphy
----------(a) wrote:
>It's not often that astrologers are willing to subject their claims to a
>formal test, but recently on the newsgroup alt.astrology a test of one
>astrologer's claims was completed.
RM: Whilst the general theme of this post is reasonably accurate (an
unusual phenomena by critics of astrology on the alt.astrology
newsgroup) it does contain some glaring errors and it also needs
clarification.
First of all, the tests were not formal ones because there was no
evidence produced to support anything that Tom Kerr stated for the
first test -- and the second test was seriously flawed and was only
pursued for entertainment value.
In the first test the following problems occurred:
(1) Ray specifically requested that no data be supplied until an
agreement was reached about how the test should be conducted. This was
ignored by Tom and data was posted anyway. [thus making the experiment
void immediately].
(2) Ray's complaint that the last few dates were "too close together"
was met with hostility and ridicule -- which was rampant throughout
all of the preliminary discussions.
*(Had the original request been observed, this would not have
happened).
(3) No assurance was given that the dates supplied had not been
"doctored" (that is: key dates removed before being submitted).
*(Had the original request been observed, this would not have
happened).
(4) No provision was made for selection of 15 "appropriate events" to
be selected for the test.
*(Had the original request been observed, this would not have
happened).
(5) The test itself had a low chance of success (even under normal
conditions) because Tom Kerr was told that the number of dates
required would be 15 --500.
>
>The test involved an astrological procedure called "rectification". This
>is an attempt, given a subject's birth time that may not be completely
>accurate, to examine important dates in that person's life and produce
>a birth time that better explains, in astrological terms, the timing of
>the important events.
RM: This includes a phenomena known to astrologers whereby an
accurately timed birth (and the resulting horoscope) needs to be
modified very slightly to coincide with the timing of astrological
transits.
>
>The astrologer in the test was Ray Murphy, a self-proclaimed expert of
>17 years in the field of rectification. The skeptic in the tests was
>Tom Kerr.
>
>Procedure
>---------
>
>Tom furnished Ray the following information:
>
>1) The subject's accurate birth location.
RM: [No evidence produced by the skeptic]
>2) The subject's birth time with a deliberately-introduced error of
> up to three hours.
RM: [No evidence produced by the skeptic]
>3) The dates of at least 15 important dates in the subject's life.
RM: [No evidence produced by the skeptic]
RM: All of the events were quite appropriate but (as mentioned above)
the last few were too close together.
RM: A failed test.
It is worth noting that HAD the birth time been given, that time could
not have been "confirmed" with the "event dates" supplied.
In other words: If that client had asked for his birth time to be
"rectified" for astrological purposes, there would have been a null
result.
>
>(Trial 2, article <3beab...@news.chariot.net.au>)
>
> This person's birth time HAD to be very close to 09:15:00 BST
> (08:15:00 GMT)
>
>And here are the actual birth times:
>
>(Trial 1, article <tumthp2...@news.supernews.com>)
>
> DOB is 3 July 1960 10:56 pm
>
>(Trial 2, article <tumt8fk...@news.supernews.com>)
>
> The birthdata, according to the guy's autobiography, is 11am on 21
> October, 1940, Fitzwilliam, Yorks, UK (BST).
>
>Results
>-------
>
>In the first trial, Ray's speculative birth time differed from the
>actual birth time by 159 minutes.
>
>In the second trial, Ray's speculative birth time differed from the
>actual birth time by 105 minutes.
RM: The second trial was not valid for a few reasons:
(1) It contained no family birth dates.
(2) The birth time is NOT known
(3) No personal "event dates" supplied by the person.
(4) It was not meant to be a formal experiment.
>
>Neither trial supported Ray's claim.
RM: Neither trial was valid.
Further trials will be gladly undertaken AFTER the rules are firmly
set in place. These trials can take 2 forms:
(a) Strictly formal -- where evidence is supplied for all relevant
data; or
(b) Informal trials -- where evidence is taken at face value.
Ray Murphy
Jeremy Toffel
> ----------
> In article <7cWI7.9042$0N4.3...@news.shore.net>, a...@shell3.shore.net
> (a) wrote:
>
>
>
>>It's not often that astrologers are willing to subject their claims to a
>>formal test, but recently on the newsgroup alt.astrology a test of one
>>astrologer's claims was completed.
>>
>
> RM: Whilst the general theme of this post is reasonably accurate
Raymond will still thrash about like a fish on a hook, making pathetic
excuses for his failure.
el...@no.spam
Ray Murphy <ray...@box.net.au> wrote:
>RM: Whilst the general theme of this post is reasonably
>accurate (an unusual phenomena by critics of astrology on the
>alt.astrology newsgroup) it does contain some glaring errors and
>it also needs clarification.
Your excuses for your failure still leave it as a failure, Ray.
So far you've had 2 failures and 0 successes. That's a very
poor record.
Jeremy Toffel
Wow!
That's a significant scientific blow to astrology.
All of the astologer's conditions were met, and he still failed
miserably at being able to do as he claimed.
He's really disqualified himself from any significant further research.
What's unsurprising is the way he's backpedalling now, sucking himself
inexorably into the quicksand created by his own nervous anal drippings.
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <3BF46215...@escapenowww.net>, Jeremy Toffel
<j...@escapenowww.net> wrote:
RM: If you choose to ignore the facts in relation to both *invalid*
tests -- go ahead.
Google still shows what really happened.
Ray
ALT.ASTROLOGY.MODERATED
http://readystump.algebra.com/~aam/
The best place on the net to discuss
astrology in the English language.
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <3BF46532...@escapenowww.net>, Jeremy Toffel
<j...@escapenowww.net> wrote:
>a wrote:
>
>> It's not often that astrologers are willing to subject their claims to a
>> formal test, but recently on the newsgroup alt.astrology a test of one
>> astrologer's claims was completed.
<SNIP>
>> Neither trial supported Ray's claim.
>
>
>
>Wow!
>
>That's a significant scientific blow to astrology.
>
>All of the astologer's conditions were met, and he still failed
>miserably at being able to do as he claimed.
>
>He's really disqualified himself from any significant further research.
>
>What's unsurprising is the way he's backpedalling now, sucking himself
>inexorably into the quicksand created by his own nervous anal drippings.
RM: As I outlined in an earlier reply, neither test was valid.
Future tests won't be valid either until both parties agree and comply
with the conditions.
Ray
[Interested in conducting further tests AFTER rules are established --
which has not happened yet].
el...@no.spam
Ray Murphy <ray...@box.net.au> wrote:
>RM: If you choose to ignore the facts in relation to both *invalid*
>tests -- go ahead.
Funny how they only became "*invalid*" after you failed.
el...@no.spam
>RM: As I outlined in an earlier reply, neither test was valid.
Like you'd be saying that if you hadn't failed? You're pathetic.
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <10058794...@no.spam.spinics.net>, el...@no.spam ()
wrote:
RM: You will find that the record shows quite clearly that I was not
satisfied with the way Tom was setting it up.
I wasn't going to participate at all but did the first one for fun
because Beep asked.
All communication with Tom had ceased prior to that because it was a
waste of time proceeding.
The second test was in no way valid (for reasons already given).
el...@no.spam
Ray Murphy <ray...@box.net.au> wrote:
>RM: You will find that the record shows quite clearly that I was not
>satisfied with the way Tom was setting it up.
Yeah, you were busy setting up your excuses.
Tony Sidaway's kid
> ----------
> In article <3BF46532...@escapenowww.net>, Jeremy Toffel
> <j...@escapenowww.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>a wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's not often that astrologers are willing to subject their claims to a
>>>formal test, but recently on the newsgroup alt.astrology a test of one
>>>astrologer's claims was completed.
>>>
>
> <SNIP>
>
>>>Neither trial supported Ray's claim.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Wow!
>>
>>That's a significant scientific blow to astrology.
>>
>>All of the astologer's conditions were met, and he still failed
>>miserably at being able to do as he claimed.
>>
>>He's really disqualified himself from any significant further research.
>>
>>What's unsurprising is the way he's backpedalling now, sucking himself
>>inexorably into the quicksand created by his own nervous anal drippings.
>>
>
> RM: As I outlined in an earlier reply, neither test was
successful, despite Tom providing all the information EXACTLY as you
requested.
You set the parameters, he met them, you failed to successfully prove
your claim.
Face it. You're a fucking LOSER.
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <9t27f1$9r8$0...@dosa.alt.net>, Tony Sidaway's kid
<""confused\"@thefreakhousefrom hell.org> wrote:
RM: I know you WISH that were true, but it's not because the tests
were invalid.
Maybe NEXT time the skeptic will OBSERVE any request to WAIT until the
rules are SET before going off half-cocked :-)>
You see -- when the astrologer says "I'm satisfied with everything" he
or she cannot easily claim afterwards that anything was amiss.
Maybe next time the skeptic and his crazy feral mates will stop
jeering long enough to listen to what's going on instead of making
fools of themselves on the public record.
One more point which seems to have completely been missed by the
skeptic and his verbose colleagues was that I was in charge of the
test -- something that appeared to drive them into a frenzy.
For what it's worth - the first test would still have probably failed,
even IF the last few dates that were "bunched up" had been replaced.
The second test (as explained earlier) was not valid on at least 4
counts.
No amount of swearing or sexal references will alter the reality of
the situation.
Ray Murphy
[Note: sci.skeptic readers - these rabid commentators posting from
alt.astrology are not astrologers, but "ferals" - basically wild
animals viciously attacking any living thing that moves].
cu...@tsbbearings.net
Ray Murphy wrote in message <3bf48...@news.chariot.net.au>...
>
>----------
>In article <10058794...@no.spam.spinics.net>, el...@no.spam ()
>wrote:
>
>
>>In article <3bf47...@news.chariot.net.au>,
>>Ray Murphy <ray...@box.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>>RM: If you choose to ignore the facts in relation to both *invalid*
>>>tests -- go ahead.
>>
>>Funny how they only became "*invalid*" after you failed.
>
>RM: You will find that the record shows quite clearly that I was not
>satisfied with the way Tom was setting it up.
>I wasn't going to participate at all but did the first one for fun
>because Beep asked.
LIAR! You had the chance to duck out. Don't blame others, especially ones
who are blameless. Beep merely asked you to continue, you made the choice to
do so. You are a cowardly fuckweasel to blame others for your failure.
>All communication with Tom had ceased prior to that because it was a
>waste of time proceeding.
More kooky denial.
>The second test was in no way valid (for reasons already given).
>
You claimed the *first test was invalid*, not the second. Keep changing your
lies, fuckhead.
--
"The biggest spammer and abuser on the internet Cu...@tsbbearings.net"
- Wollmann showing how to make friends for life with a few kind words.
"The point punk, is that abusers like you will soon be removed
completely from the internet and placed in custody for your criminal
activities." - A comma-challenged Wollmann fucks up yet another prediction.
"THANKS TO CUJO FLOODING MY SURVEY AND SOLICITING HIS FRIENDS TO DO THE
SAME, WHICH THEY DID FROM MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS, HE HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM
THIS SURVEY AND WILL FIND A PLACE OF...HONOR...ELSEWHERE IN THESE PAGES"
- John Dutka calmly admits to planning a Page of Hate for me.
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in Alt.paranormal,
Alt.astrology, Alt.astrology.pro and Alt.astrology.metapsych
http://www.petitmorte.net/cujo/cujcert.jpg
Tony Sidaway's kid
> RM: I know you WSLAP!
Stop lying and making lame excuses, you little faggot.
Tony Sidaway's kid
> ----------
> In article <3BF46215...@escapenowww.net>, Jeremy Toffel
> <j...@escapenowww.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Ray Murphy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>----------
>>>In article <7cWI7.9042$0N4.3...@news.shore.net>, a...@shell3.shore.net
>>>(a) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's not often that astrologers are willing to subject their claims to a
>>>>formal test, but recently on the newsgroup alt.astrology a test of one
>>>>astrologer's claims was completed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>RM: Whilst the general theme of this post is reasonably accurate
>>>
>>
>>Raymond will still thrash about like a fish on a hook, making pathetic
>>excuses for his failure.
>>
>
> RM: Google still shows what really happened.
Yes, it shows Tom following the specs you set and you still failed to
perform they way you said you would.
All your ridiculous and indefensible excuses make you look even more
pathetic.
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <9t2h9k$b1s$0...@pita.alt.net>, Tony Sidaway's kid
<""confused\"@thefreakhousefrom hell.org> wrote:
RM: That's mighty tough talk for someone who is too afraid to use
their name on Usenet :-)>
(Someone who uses the latest Mac operating system).
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:0.9.5)
Gecko/20011015
Ray
cu...@tsbbearings.net
>
>----------
>In article <3BF46215...@escapenowww.net>, Jeremy Toffel
><j...@escapenowww.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Ray Murphy wrote:
>>
>>> ----------
>>> In article <7cWI7.9042$0N4.3...@news.shore.net>, a...@shell3.shore.net
>>> (a) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's not often that astrologers are willing to subject their claims to a
>>>>formal test, but recently on the newsgroup alt.astrology a test of one
>>>>astrologer's claims was completed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> RM: Whilst the general theme of this post is reasonably accurate
>>
>>
>>Raymond will still thrash about like a fish on a hook, making pathetic
>>excuses for his failure.
>
>RM: If you choose to ignore the facts in relation to both *invalid*
>tests -- go ahead.
>Google still shows what really happened.
>
Dance some more for us (tinu), kookboi.
Königstiger
Fish? Fishboy?
ash
['Here FISHIE FISHIE FISHIE!']
--
"This damn tree leaks."
_________________________________________________________________
limitinfinitesetsweusedtohavelegitimatepresidentsimadeyoureadthis
sigisnowstalkingyouifyoudontlikethesepostsyoucanblowmerepeatseter
Riven against the Black Sun Six ...that which we are, we are.
Tony Sidaway's kid
I *am* using my name on Usenet. In fact, I have an unlimited supply of
names on Usenet. I'm certainly not afraid to use any of them, you
limpwristed, lying, cuckolded little cocksucker!
> (Someone who uses the latest Mac operating system).
> Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPSLAP!
Yes, anyone can read my headers, Ray. I can also make my headers say
anything I fucking please. Does this excite you?
Königstiger
>> Face it. You're a fucking LOSER.
>A farking JAGOFF LUSER.
Naw. He's not even that interesting.
ash
['Seriously, how many Ray Murphy's can bore a shitload of angels to sleep?']
a
Ray Murphy <ray...@box.net.au> wrote:
>In article <7cWI7.9042$0N4.3...@news.shore.net>, a...@shell3.shore.net
>(a) wrote:
>>It's not often that astrologers are willing to subject their claims to a
>>formal test, but recently on the newsgroup alt.astrology a test of one
>>astrologer's claims was completed.
>
>RM: Whilst the general theme of this post is reasonably accurate (an
>unusual phenomena by critics of astrology on the alt.astrology
>newsgroup) it does contain some glaring errors and it also needs
>clarification.
You point out some objections you have to the experimental procedure,
but you do not specify any "glaring errors" in the article.
BTW, the original article is now available on the World Wide Web at
this URL:
http://www.shore.net/~a/raymurphy/rectification.html
>First of all, the tests were not formal ones
That's fine. No claim was made that they were formal tests.
>because there was no
>evidence produced to support anything that Tom Kerr stated for the
>first test
And of course, no evidence from you to cause anyone to suspect Tom's
data.
>-- and the second test was seriously flawed and was only
>pursued for entertainment value.
>
>In the first test the following problems occurred:
>
>(1) Ray specifically requested that no data be supplied until an
>agreement was reached about how the test should be conducted. This was
>ignored by Tom and data was posted anyway. [thus making the experiment
>void immediately].
On the contrary, in article <3bdfe...@news.chariot.net.au> you
urged Tom to present the data right away:
"RM: If you think it's pathetic then why has it taken a week
for you to gather some "event dates" and start co-operating
with this project. Why don't you stop fooling around and see
what happens?"
Tom complied and presented the data, and we all saw what happened.
>(2) Ray's complaint that the last few dates were "too close together"
>was met with hostility and ridicule -- which was rampant throughout
>all of the preliminary discussions.
I don't think it's reasonable to believe that if people had been
less hostile you would have performed any better.
>*(Had the original request been observed, this would not have
>happened).
Again, you urged Tom to present the data.
>(3) No assurance was given that the dates supplied had not been
>"doctored" (that is: key dates removed before being submitted).
I don't think it's reasonable to believe that if such assurance
had been given you would have performed any better.
>*(Had the original request been observed, this would not have
>happened).
You urged Tom to present the data.
>(4) No provision was made for selection of 15 "appropriate events" to
>be selected for the test.
But later you state that the list of events is appropriate:
"RM: All of the events were quite appropriate"
>*(Had the original request been observed, this would not have
>happened).
You urged Tom to present the data.
>(5) The test itself had a low chance of success (even under normal
>conditions) because Tom Kerr was told that the number of dates
>required would be 15 --500.
I agree that you had a low chance of success. But I don't think
more events would have helped. :-)
But in any event, you requested a minimum of 15 events, and that's
what you were given. This is no reason to invalidate the trial.
>>The test involved an astrological procedure called "rectification". This
>>is an attempt, given a subject's birth time that may not be completely
>>accurate, to examine important dates in that person's life and produce
>>a birth time that better explains, in astrological terms, the timing of
>>the important events.
>
>RM: This includes a phenomena known to astrologers whereby an
>accurately timed birth (and the resulting horoscope) needs to be
>modified very slightly to coincide with the timing of astrological
>transits.
>>
>>The astrologer in the test was Ray Murphy, a self-proclaimed expert of
>>17 years in the field of rectification. The skeptic in the tests was
>>Tom Kerr.
>>
>>Procedure
>>---------
>>
>>Tom furnished Ray the following information:
>>
>>1) The subject's accurate birth location.
>
>RM: [No evidence produced by the skeptic]
In the second trial, the birth location was from the subject's
autobiography. And you have given no reason to suspect the data
from the first trial.
>>2) The subject's birth time with a deliberately-introduced error of
>> up to three hours.
>
>RM: [No evidence produced by the skeptic]
Except the autobiography.
>>3) The dates of at least 15 important dates in the subject's life.
>
>RM: [No evidence produced by the skeptic]
The autobiography.
In a subsequent article you state that you would have failed even if the
dates were not too close together:
"For what it's worth - the first test would still have probably
failed, even IF the last few dates that were "bunched up" had
been replaced."
>>(Trial 2, from article <tukl1sj...@news.supernews.com>)
Yes. If something different had happened, something different would
have happened.
>>(Trial 2, article <3beab...@news.chariot.net.au>)
>>
>> This person's birth time HAD to be very close to 09:15:00 BST
>> (08:15:00 GMT)
>>
>>And here are the actual birth times:
>>
>>(Trial 1, article <tumthp2...@news.supernews.com>)
>>
>> DOB is 3 July 1960 10:56 pm
>>
>>(Trial 2, article <tumt8fk...@news.supernews.com>)
>>
>> The birthdata, according to the guy's autobiography, is 11am on 21
>> October, 1940, Fitzwilliam, Yorks, UK (BST).
>>
>>Results
>>-------
>>
>>In the first trial, Ray's speculative birth time differed from the
>>actual birth time by 159 minutes.
>>
>>In the second trial, Ray's speculative birth time differed from the
>>actual birth time by 105 minutes.
>
>RM: The second trial was not valid for a few reasons:
>(1) It contained no family birth dates.
You never stated this as a requirement until now. This is no reason
not to believe the trial was valid.
>(2) The birth time is NOT known
Of course it is. It's in the subject's autobiography.
>(3) No personal "event dates" supplied by the person.
All the events came from the subject's autobiography.
>(4) It was not meant to be a formal experiment.
That doesn't mean it's invalid.
>>Neither trial supported Ray's claim.
>
>RM: Neither trial was valid.
I don't believe you have presented any viable reason to believe that either
trial was in any way invalid.
Tony Sidaway's kid
> In article <3bf45...@news.chariot.net.au>,
> Ray Murphy <ray...@box.net.au> wrote:
>
>>In article <7cWI7.9042$0N4.3...@news.shore.net>, a...@shell3.shore.net
>>(a) wrote:
>>
>>>It's not often that astrologers are willing to subject their claims to a
>>>formal test, but recently on the newsgroup alt.astrology a test of one
>>>astrologer's claims was completed.
>>>
>>RM: Whilst the general theme of this post is reasonably accurate (an
>>unusual phenomena by critics of astrology on the alt.astrology
>>newsgroup) it does contain some glaring errors and it also needs
>>clarification.
>>
>
> You point out some objections you have to the experimental procedure,
> but you do not specify any "glaring errors" in the article.
Ray has a funny habit of not being able to actually do the things he
says he can.
>
> BTW, the original article is now available on the World Wide Web at
> this URL:
>
> http://www.shore.net/~a/raymurphy/rectification.html
>
>
>>First of all, the tests were not formal ones
>>
>
> That's fine. No claim was made that they were formal tests.
Well, then, who the fuck is going to pay for this tuxedo rental? ;-)
>
>
>>because there was no
>>evidence produced to support anything that Tom Kerr stated for the
>>first test
>>
>
> And of course, no evidence from you to cause anyone to suspect Tom's
> data.
And Ray didn't specify that any evidence was needed to support it, either.
>
>
>>-- and the second test was seriously flawed and was only
>>pursued for entertainment value.
>>
>>In the first test the following problems occurred:
>>
>>(1) Ray specifically requested that no data be supplied until an
>>agreement was reached about how the test should be conducted. This was
>>ignored by Tom and data was posted anyway. [thus making the experiment
>>void immediately].
>>
>
> On the contrary, in article <3bdfe...@news.chariot.net.au> you
> urged Tom to present the data right away:
>
> "RM: If you think it's pathetic then why has it taken a week
> for you to gather some "event dates" and start co-operating
> with this project. Why don't you stop fooling around and see
> what happens?"
>
> Tom complied and presented the data, and we all saw what happened.
We all certainly did. We all saw Ray fail, that's what happened.
>
>
>>(2) Ray's complaint that the last few dates were "too close together"
>>was met with hostility and ridicule -- which was rampant throughout
>>all of the preliminary discussions.
>>
>
> I don't think it's reasonable to believe that if people had been
> less hostile you would have performed any better.
They weren't "too close together". There was over a twenty year
difference between the second and third to last dates, and a two year
difference between the last date and the second to last date.
Of course people are going to be hostile and ridicule a fraud who tries
to weasel out of his own specifications that way.
>
>
>>*(Had the original request been observed, this would not have
>>happened).
>>
>
> Again, you urged Tom to present the data.
The request was observed and complied with.
>
>
>>(3) No assurance was given that the dates supplied had not been
>>"doctored" (that is: key dates removed before being submitted).
>>
>
> I don't think it's reasonable to believe that if such assurance
> had been given you would have performed any better.
Ray did not ask for a review of the dates ahead of time.
>
>
>>*(Had the original request been observed, this would not have
>>happened).
>>
>
> You urged Tom to present the data.
Tom complied with Ray's request to the letter.
>
>
>>(4) No provision was made for selection of 15 "appropriate events" to
>>be selected for the test.
>>
>
> But later you state that the list of events is appropriate:
>
> "RM: All of the events were quite appropriate"
Oops. Looks like Ray's also a failure at coming up with credible excuses.
>
>
>>*(Had the original request been observed, this would not have
>>happened).
>>
>
> You urged Tom to present the data.
Tom presented the data requested, Ray failed to perform as he claimed he
would. Ergo, Ray failed, and everyone is laughing at him.
>
>
>>(5) The test itself had a low chance of success (even under normal
>>conditions) because Tom Kerr was told that the number of dates
>>required would be 15 --500.
>>
>
> I agree that you had a low chance of success. But I don't think
> more events would have helped. :-)
>
> But in any event, you requested a minimum of 15 events, and that's
> what you were given. This is no reason to invalidate the trial.
Darn tooting.
>
>
>>>The test involved an astrological procedure called "rectification". This
>>>is an attempt, given a subject's birth time that may not be completely
>>>accurate, to examine important dates in that person's life and produce
>>>a birth time that better explains, in astrological terms, the timing of
>>>the important events.
>>>
>>RM: This includes a phenomena known to astrologers whereby an
>>accurately timed birth (and the resulting horoscope) needs to be
>>modified very slightly to coincide with the timing of astrological
>>transits.
>>
>>>The astrologer in the test was Ray Murphy, a self-proclaimed expert of
>>>17 years in the field of rectification. The skeptic in the tests was
>>>Tom Kerr.
>>>
>>>Procedure
>>>---------
>>>
>>>Tom furnished Ray the following information:
>>>
>>>1) The subject's accurate birth location.
>>>
>>RM: [No evidence produced by the skeptic]
>>
>
> In the second trial, the birth location was from the subject's
> autobiography. And you have given no reason to suspect the data
> from the first trial.
Well, the reason is obvious: Ray's flailing desperately.
>
>
>>>2) The subject's birth time with a deliberately-introduced error of
>>> up to three hours.
>>>
>>RM: [No evidence produced by the skeptic]
>>
>
> Except the autobiography.
Oh. *That* evidence.
>
>
>>>3) The dates of at least 15 important dates in the subject's life.
>>>
>>RM: [No evidence produced by the skeptic]
>>
>
> The autobiography.
Yes.
But they aren't. 6 years, 26 years, and 3 years apart are far from "too
close together".
>>
>
> In a subsequent article you state that you would have failed even if the
> dates were not too close together:
>
> "For what it's worth - the first test would still have probably
> failed, even IF the last few dates that were "bunched up" had
> been replaced."
Of course it would have. Ray always fails.
Let me tell you what part of the tests was an absolute success: People's
predictions that Ray would fail miserably.
>
>
>>>(Trial 2, article <3beab...@news.chariot.net.au>)
>>>
>>> This person's birth time HAD to be very close to 09:15:00 BST
>>> (08:15:00 GMT)
>>>
>>>And here are the actual birth times:
>>>
>>>(Trial 1, article <tumthp2...@news.supernews.com>)
>>>
>>> DOB is 3 July 1960 10:56 pm
>>>
>>>(Trial 2, article <tumt8fk...@news.supernews.com>)
>>>
>>> The birthdata, according to the guy's autobiography, is 11am on 21
>>> October, 1940, Fitzwilliam, Yorks, UK (BST).
>>>
>>>Results
>>>-------
>>>
>>>In the first trial, Ray's speculative birth time differed from the
>>>actual birth time by 159 minutes.
>>>
>>>In the second trial, Ray's speculative birth time differed from the
>>>actual birth time by 105 minutes.
>>>
>>RM: The second trial was not valid for a few reasons:
>>(1) It contained no family birth dates.
>>
>
> You never stated this as a requirement until now.
Therefore his *objection* is invalid.
>This is no reason
> not to believe the trial was valid.
It's just another example of Ray trying to cherry-pick only the data
that supports his views.
>
>
>>(2) The birth time is NOT known
>>
>
> Of course it is. It's in the subject's autobiography.
Oops.
>
>
>>(3) No personal "event dates" supplied by the person.
>>
>
> All the events came from the subject's autobiography.
Oh, so Ray's *lying* again!
>
>
>>(4) It was not meant to be a formal experiment.
>>
>
> That doesn't mean it's invalid.
It's perfectly valid; it validates peoples claims that astrology is crap.
>
>
>>>Neither trial supported Ray's claim.
>>>
>>RM: Neither trial was valid.
>>
>
> I don't believe you have presented any viable reason to believe that either
> trial was in any way invalid.
He hasn't.
Nor has he yet presented any viable of credible evidence that shows
astrology to work in any manner whatsoever.
>
>
>>Further trials will be gladly undertaken AFTER the rules are firmly
>>set in place. These trials can take 2 forms:
>>(a) Strictly formal -- where evidence is supplied for all relevant
>>data; or
Well, then, these last two were formal, then.
>>(b) Informal trials -- where evidence is taken at face value.
Ray seems to be incapable of doing just that.
Hypatia
>roacci <roa...@databasix.com> spooged...
>>> Face it. You're a fucking LOSER.
>>No.
>>A farking JAGOFF LUSER.
>
> Naw. He's not even that interesting.
>
>ash
>['Seriously, how many Ray Murphy's can bore a shitload of angels to sleep?']
One is more than enough.
Odysseus
>
> Maybe NEXT time the skeptic will OBSERVE any request to WAIT until the
> rules are SET before going off half-cocked :-)>
I'm coming into this discussion late, but something puzzles me: if the
conditions for a satisfactory test hadn't been met, why did you go ahead
and present rectified birth times determined from inadequate data? If
the test "went off half-cocked", surely you must accept some
responsibility for that? No-one's mentioned there having been a deadline
to meet: it's not surprising that your going ahead with the
rectification was understood by the skeptics to imply your acceptance of
the conditions as they stood.
--Odysseus
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <pacJ7.9114$0N4.3...@news.shore.net>, a...@shell3.shore.net
(a) wrote:
>In article <3bf45...@news.chariot.net.au>,
>Ray Murphy <ray...@box.net.au> wrote:
>>In article <7cWI7.9042$0N4.3...@news.shore.net>, a...@shell3.shore.net
>>(a) wrote:
>>>It's not often that astrologers are willing to subject their claims to a
>>>formal test, but recently on the newsgroup alt.astrology a test of one
>>>astrologer's claims was completed.
>>
>>RM: Whilst the general theme of this post is reasonably accurate (an
>>unusual phenomena by critics of astrology on the alt.astrology
>>newsgroup) it does contain some glaring errors and it also needs
>>clarification.
>
>You point out some objections you have to the experimental procedure,
>but you do not specify any "glaring errors" in the article.
RM: The article fails to mention that:
(a) There is no proof supplied to confirm the stated birth time.
(b) The second person is known to have TWO reported birth times
(according to Tom).
>
>BTW, the original article is now available on the World Wide Web at
>this URL:
>
> http://www.shore.net/~a/raymurphy/rectification.html
>
>>First of all, the tests were not formal ones
>
>That's fine. No claim was made that they were formal tests.
RM: So this ought to have been mentioned in the report because some of
the content is only Tom's word.
>
>>because there was no
>>evidence produced to support anything that Tom Kerr stated for the
>>first test
>
>And of course, no evidence from you to cause anyone to suspect Tom's
>data.
RM: No, apart from the fact that the second birth time was one of two
times.
>
>>-- and the second test was seriously flawed and was only
>>pursued for entertainment value.
>>
>>In the first test the following problems occurred:
>>
>>(1) Ray specifically requested that no data be supplied until an
>>agreement was reached about how the test should be conducted. This was
>>ignored by Tom and data was posted anyway. [thus making the experiment
>>void immediately].
>
>On the contrary, in article <3bdfe...@news.chariot.net.au> you
>urged Tom to present the data right away:
>
> "RM: If you think it's pathetic then why has it taken a week
> for you to gather some "event dates" and start co-operating
> with this project. Why don't you stop fooling around and see
> what happens?"
>
>Tom complied and presented the data, and we all saw what happened.
RM: There was no co-operation (to the request to get everything sorted
out before proceeding).
>
>>(2) Ray's complaint that the last few dates were "too close together"
>>was met with hostility and ridicule -- which was rampant throughout
>>all of the preliminary discussions.
>
>I don't think it's reasonable to believe that if people had been
>less hostile you would have performed any better.
RM: Wrong. The appropriate conditions were not met because of the
hostility.
>
>>*(Had the original request been observed, this would not have
>>happened).
>
>Again, you urged Tom to present the data.
RM: This does not negate the firm request that everything be agreed
upon BEFORE data was presented.
>
>>(3) No assurance was given that the dates supplied had not been
>>"doctored" (that is: key dates removed before being submitted).
>
>I don't think it's reasonable to believe that if such assurance
>had been given you would have performed any better.
RM: That's absurd! If the dates were "doctored" by the owner of the
horoscope before being given to Tom, there would be NO HOPE of finding
the right birth time. (Elimination of dates with conjunctions or
oppositions to the MC + Asc would do that every time).
>
>>*(Had the original request been observed, this would not have
>>happened).
>
>You urged Tom to present the data.
RM: It still does not negate the firm request for rules to be set in
place before dates were presented.
>
>>(4) No provision was made for selection of 15 "appropriate events" to
>>be selected for the test.
>
>But later you state that the list of events is appropriate:
>
> "RM: All of the events were quite appropriate"
RM: The dates WERE appropriate, but had the preliminary discussions
continued, some would probably have been replaced with more
appropriate dates (still numbering 15).
>
>>*(Had the original request been observed, this would not have
>>happened).
>
>You urged Tom to present the data.
RM: It still does not negate the firm request for rules to be set in
place before dates were presented.
>
>>(5) The test itself had a low chance of success (even under normal
>>conditions) because Tom Kerr was told that the number of dates
>>required would be 15 --500.
>
>I agree that you had a low chance of success. But I don't think
>more events would have helped. :-)
RM: Well you're wrong. The chance of success is (more or less)
directly proportional to the number of dates given within a range of
10 --> 200
>
>But in any event, you requested a minimum of 15 events, and that's
>what you were given. This is no reason to invalidate the trial.
RM: Further discussions (had they been continued in a non-antagonistic
manner) would have resulted in a mention of gaps between dates -
because (theoretically) Tom could have supplied with the first test 4
family members and 11 football grand finals - instead of "personal
events".
>
>>>The test involved an astrological procedure called "rectification". This
>>>is an attempt, given a subject's birth time that may not be completely
>>>accurate, to examine important dates in that person's life and produce
>>>a birth time that better explains, in astrological terms, the timing of
>>>the important events.
>>
>>RM: This includes a phenomena known to astrologers whereby an
>>accurately timed birth (and the resulting horoscope) needs to be
>>modified very slightly to coincide with the timing of astrological
>>transits.
>>>
>>>The astrologer in the test was Ray Murphy, a self-proclaimed expert of
>>>17 years in the field of rectification. The skeptic in the tests was
>>>Tom Kerr.
>>>
>>>Procedure
>>>---------
>>>
>>>Tom furnished Ray the following information:
>>>
>>>1) The subject's accurate birth location.
>>
>>RM: [No evidence produced by the skeptic]
>
>In the second trial, the birth location was from the subject's
>autobiography. And you have given no reason to suspect the data
>from the first trial.
>
>>>2) The subject's birth time with a deliberately-introduced error of
>>> up to three hours.
>>
>>RM: [No evidence produced by the skeptic]
>
>Except the autobiography.
RM: Which had only one of two known birth times (according to Tom).
>
>>>3) The dates of at least 15 important dates in the subject's life.
>>
>>RM: [No evidence produced by the skeptic]
>
>The autobiography.
RM: The dates required are normally given by the subject (not an
observer). It did not matter in this test because it was NOT a valid
experiment (according to the rules we were BEGINNING to set in place).
RM: Read my words below again. I did not say the test WOULD have
failed. I said it probably would have failed.
RM: These items were FIRST on the list of suggested "event dates"
which I gave to Tom.
They were given in the first test but NOT in the second test.
>
>>(2) The birth time is NOT known
>
>Of course it is. It's in the subject's autobiography.
RM: It was only one of TWO birth times given for the subject.
>
>>(3) No personal "event dates" supplied by the person.
>
>All the events came from the subject's autobiography.
RM: Personal "event dates" (given by the subject) are required for
experiments like this.
(See original suggestion list given to Tom).
>
>>(4) It was not meant to be a formal experiment.
>
>That doesn't mean it's invalid.
RM: The second test is *absolutely* invalid for the reasons already
given.
The first test was invalid because there as no co-operation or final
agreement about the conditions.
* Tests like this PROCEED when everyone is satisfied - not before.
>
>>>Neither trial supported Ray's claim.
>>
>>RM: Neither trial was valid.
>
>I don't believe you have presented any viable reason to believe that either
>trial was in any way invalid.
RM: Well after reading this post (and the appropriate posts) you may
change your mind.
>
>>Further trials will be gladly undertaken AFTER the rules are firmly
>>set in place. These trials can take 2 forms:
>>(a) Strictly formal -- where evidence is supplied for all relevant
>>data; or
>>(b) Informal trials -- where evidence is taken at face value.
>>
>>Ray Murphy
Ray
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <9t3r0o$9hl$0...@dosa.alt.net>, Tony Sidaway's kid
<""confused\"@thefreakhousefrom hell.org> wrote:
>a wrote:
>
>> In article <3bf45...@news.chariot.net.au>,
>> Ray Murphy <ray...@box.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <7cWI7.9042$0N4.3...@news.shore.net>, a...@shell3.shore.net
>>>(a) wrote:
>>>
>>>>It's not often that astrologers are willing to subject their claims to a
>>>>formal test, but recently on the newsgroup alt.astrology a test of one
>>>>astrologer's claims was completed.
>>>>
>>>RM: Whilst the general theme of this post is reasonably accurate (an
>>>unusual phenomena by critics of astrology on the alt.astrology
>>>newsgroup) it does contain some glaring errors and it also needs
>>>clarification.
>>>
>>
>> You point out some objections you have to the experimental procedure,
>> but you do not specify any "glaring errors" in the article.
>
>
>Ray has a funny habit of not being able to actually do the things he
>says he can.
RM: This has noting to do with an analysis of the tests.
>
>
>>
>> BTW, the original article is now available on the World Wide Web at
>> this URL:
>>
>> http://www.shore.net/~a/raymurphy/rectification.html
>>
>>
>>>First of all, the tests were not formal ones
>>>
>>
>> That's fine. No claim was made that they were formal tests.
>
>
>Well, then, who the fuck is going to pay for this tuxedo rental? ;-)
RM: You KNEW we were only experimenting. That was made clear in the
very first proposition.
There will be no refunds.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>because there was no
>>>evidence produced to support anything that Tom Kerr stated for the
>>>first test
>>>
>>
>> And of course, no evidence from you to cause anyone to suspect Tom's
>> data.
>
>
>And Ray didn't specify that any evidence was needed to support it, either.
RM: That's true. It was a preliminary "run" (to get some rules and
procedures in place) before formal experiments began.
Fortunately some of those rules were established but not all - and
they are STILL not in place.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>-- and the second test was seriously flawed and was only
>>>pursued for entertainment value.
>>>
>>>In the first test the following problems occurred:
>>>
>>>(1) Ray specifically requested that no data be supplied until an
>>>agreement was reached about how the test should be conducted. This was
>>>ignored by Tom and data was posted anyway. [thus making the experiment
>>>void immediately].
>>>
>>
>> On the contrary, in article <3bdfe...@news.chariot.net.au> you
>> urged Tom to present the data right away:
>>
>> "RM: If you think it's pathetic then why has it taken a week
>> for you to gather some "event dates" and start co-operating
>> with this project. Why don't you stop fooling around and see
>> what happens?"
>>
>> Tom complied and presented the data, and we all saw what happened.
>
>
>We all certainly did. We all saw Ray fail, that's what happened.
RM: The tests were invalid (reasons already given).
>
>
>>
>>
>>>(2) Ray's complaint that the last few dates were "too close together"
>>>was met with hostility and ridicule -- which was rampant throughout
>>>all of the preliminary discussions.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think it's reasonable to believe that if people had been
>> less hostile you would have performed any better.
>
>
>They weren't "too close together". There was over a twenty year
>difference between the second and third to last dates, and a two year
>difference between the last date and the second to last date.
RM: Wrong.
In the first test (the only one that matters) the last dates in time
sequence were ALL too close together:
23.07.01
11.08.01
23.08.01
09.09.01
10.09.01
14.09.01
They were SO CLOSE as to border on the ridiculous (for such a test).
If for example 23.07.01 had been selected as 'ok" then NONE of the
ohers would have been - because they are less than 2 months away. 6
dates in 43 days is ridiculous!
>
>Of course people are going to be hostile and ridicule a fraud who tries
>to weasel out of his own specifications that way.
RM: See above.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>*(Had the original request been observed, this would not have
>>>happened).
>>>
>>
>> Again, you urged Tom to present the data.
>
>
>The request was observed and complied with.
RM: The request for discussion of rules was not.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>(3) No assurance was given that the dates supplied had not been
>>>"doctored" (that is: key dates removed before being submitted).
>>>
>>
>> I don't think it's reasonable to believe that if such assurance
>> had been given you would have performed any better.
>
>
>Ray did not ask for a review of the dates ahead of time.
RM: I would NOT want a review of dates ahead of time because THAT
would be cheating!
I would demand that the *type* of events be seen - without dates
though.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>*(Had the original request been observed, this would not have
>>>happened).
>>>
>>
>> You urged Tom to present the data.
RM: The request for discussion of rules was never completed.
>
>
>Tom complied with Ray's request to the letter.
RM: See above. He did not.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>(4) No provision was made for selection of 15 "appropriate events" to
>>>be selected for the test.
>>>
>>
>> But later you state that the list of events is appropriate:
>>
>> "RM: All of the events were quite appropriate"
>
>
>Oops. Looks like Ray's also a failure at coming up with credible excuses.
RM: The events were appropriate but the bunching up of dates was NOT
appropriate.
To look at data THAT close together (6 observations in 43 days) is
about as stupid as Tom (in Astronomy) trying to work out the orbital
elements of a new asteroid by taking measurements too close together!
>
>
>>
>>
>>>*(Had the original request been observed, this would not have
>>>happened).
>>>
>>
>> You urged Tom to present the data.
>
>
>Tom presented the data requested, Ray failed to perform as he claimed he
>would. Ergo, Ray failed, and everyone is laughing at him.
RM: A few "ferals" at alt.astrology perhaps - but the facts will be
obvious to others.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>(5) The test itself had a low chance of success (even under normal
>>>conditions) because Tom Kerr was told that the number of dates
>>>required would be 15 --500.
>>>
>>
>> I agree that you had a low chance of success. But I don't think
>> more events would have helped. :-)
>>
>> But in any event, you requested a minimum of 15 events, and that's
>> what you were given. This is no reason to invalidate the trial.
>
>
>Darn tooting.
RM: The reasons both trial were invalid have already been made
perfectly clear.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>The test involved an astrological procedure called "rectification". This
>>>>is an attempt, given a subject's birth time that may not be completely
>>>>accurate, to examine important dates in that person's life and produce
>>>>a birth time that better explains, in astrological terms, the timing of
>>>>the important events.
>>>>
>>>RM: This includes a phenomena known to astrologers whereby an
>>>accurately timed birth (and the resulting horoscope) needs to be
>>>modified very slightly to coincide with the timing of astrological
>>>transits.
>>>
>>>>The astrologer in the test was Ray Murphy, a self-proclaimed expert of
>>>>17 years in the field of rectification. The skeptic in the tests was
>>>>Tom Kerr.
>>>>
>>>>Procedure
>>>>---------
>>>>
>>>>Tom furnished Ray the following information:
>>>>
>>>>1) The subject's accurate birth location.
>>>>
>>>RM: [No evidence produced by the skeptic]
>>>
>>
>> In the second trial, the birth location was from the subject's
>> autobiography. And you have given no reason to suspect the data
>> from the first trial.
>
>
>Well, the reason is obvious: Ray's flailing desperately.
RM: I don't doubt Tom's word about the birth data, or the subject's
selection of dates, but the bunching of 6 dates in 43 days was QUITE
innapropriate.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>2) The subject's birth time with a deliberately-introduced error of
>>>> up to three hours.
>>>>
>>>RM: [No evidence produced by the skeptic]
>>>
>>
>> Except the autobiography.
>
>
>Oh. *That* evidence.
RM: Tom has already stated that he KNOWS of another "birth time" for
the subject.
RM: See above - 6 dates in 43 days ARE too close together.
>
>
>>>
>>
>> In a subsequent article you state that you would have failed even if the
>> dates were not too close together:
>>
>> "For what it's worth - the first test would still have probably
>> failed, even IF the last few dates that were "bunched up" had
>> been replaced."
RM: This is not accurate. I was going from memory because the whole
thing was not worth looking at again. There were 6 events in 43 days -
(an absurd bunching-up). I had thouht it was only 3.
RM: It was the FIRST requirement!
>
>
>Therefore his *objection* is invalid.
RM: See above - it was not.
>
>
>>This is no reason
>> not to believe the trial was valid.
>
>
>It's just another example of Ray trying to cherry-pick only the data
>that supports his views.
RM: The bunching up of dates is not permissale. Call it cherry picking
if you want.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>(2) The birth time is NOT known
>>>
>>
>> Of course it is. It's in the subject's autobiography.
>
>
>Oops.
RM: It was only 1 of TWO times given for the subject.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>(3) No personal "event dates" supplied by the person.
>>>
>>
>> All the events came from the subject's autobiography.
>
>
>Oh, so Ray's *lying* again!
RM: Personal "event dates" (given by the subject) are essential.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>(4) It was not meant to be a formal experiment.
>>>
>>
>> That doesn't mean it's invalid.
RM: An informal experiment is not necesarioy invalid but both of
theresWERE invalid for reasons alraedy given.
>
>
>It's perfectly valid; it validates peoples claims that astrology is crap.
RM: That's a bit un-scientific! (no evidence whatever).
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>Neither trial supported Ray's claim.
>>>>
>>>RM: Neither trial was valid.
>>>
>>
>> I don't believe you have presented any viable reason to believe that either
>> trial was in any way invalid.
RM: Read above then!
>
>
>He hasn't.
>
>Nor has he yet presented any viable of credible evidence that shows
>astrology to work in any manner whatsoever.
RM: Nor has any skeptic proven the contrary.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>Further trials will be gladly undertaken AFTER the rules are firmly
>>>set in place. These trials can take 2 forms:
>>>(a) Strictly formal -- where evidence is supplied for all relevant
>>>data; or
>
>
>Well, then, these last two were formal, then.
RM: No they were both seriously flawed.
>
>
>>>(b) Informal trials -- where evidence is taken at face value.
>
>
>Ray seems to be incapable of doing just that.
Ray
cu...@tsbbearings.net
<3bf5f...@news.chariot.net.au>...
>
>----------
>In article <pacJ7.9114$0N4.3...@news.shore.net>, a...@shell3.shore.net
>(a) wrote:
>
>
>>In article <3bf45...@news.chariot.net.au>,
>>Ray Murphy <ray...@box.net.au> wrote:
>>>In article <7cWI7.9042$0N4.3...@news.shore.net>, a...@shell3.shore.net
>>>(a) wrote:
>>>>It's not often that astrologers are willing to subject their claims to a
>>>>formal test, but recently on the newsgroup alt.astrology a test of one
>>>>astrologer's claims was completed.
>>>
>>>RM: Whilst the general theme of this post is reasonably accurate (an
>>>unusual phenomena by critics of astrology on the alt.astrology
>>>newsgroup) it does contain some glaring errors and it also needs
>>>clarification.
>>
>>You point out some objections you have to the experimental procedure,
>>but you do not specify any "glaring errors" in the article.
>
>RM: The article fails to mention that:
>(a) There is no proof supplied to confirm the stated birth time.
There's also nothing to contradict it, fuckmonkey.
>(b) The second person is known to have TWO reported birth times
>(according to Tom).
Which you *still got wrong* in either case, dumbfuck.
>>
>>BTW, the original article is now available on the World Wide Web at
>>this URL:
>>
>> http://www.shore.net/~a/raymurphy/rectification.html
>>
>>>First of all, the tests were not formal ones
>>
>>That's fine. No claim was made that they were formal tests.
>
>RM: So this ought to have been mentioned in the report because some of
>the content is only Tom's word.
Which is a lot better than yours, especially since you admit to lying 85% of
the time. Let's see some evidence that Tom lied, asshole.
>>
>>>because there was no
>>>evidence produced to support anything that Tom Kerr stated for the
>>>first test
>>
>>And of course, no evidence from you to cause anyone to suspect Tom's
>>data.
>
>RM: No, apart from the fact that the second birth time was one of two
>times.
You got it wrong in either case, dipshit.
>>
>>>-- and the second test was seriously flawed and was only
>>>pursued for entertainment value.
>>>
>>>In the first test the following problems occurred:
>>>
>>>(1) Ray specifically requested that no data be supplied until an
>>>agreement was reached about how the test should be conducted. This was
>>>ignored by Tom and data was posted anyway. [thus making the experiment
>>>void immediately].
>>
>>On the contrary, in article <3bdfe...@news.chariot.net.au> you
>>urged Tom to present the data right away:
>>
>> "RM: If you think it's pathetic then why has it taken a week
>> for you to gather some "event dates" and start co-operating
>> with this project. Why don't you stop fooling around and see
>> what happens?"
>>
>>Tom complied and presented the data, and we all saw what happened.
>
>RM: There was no co-operation (to the request to get everything sorted
>out before proceeding).
You are seriously deluded. You signed off on it. Keep moving the goalposts,
Raytard.
>>
>>>(2) Ray's complaint that the last few dates were "too close together"
>>>was met with hostility and ridicule -- which was rampant throughout
>>>all of the preliminary discussions.
>>
>>I don't think it's reasonable to believe that if people had been
>>less hostile you would have performed any better.
>
>RM: Wrong. The appropriate conditions were not met because of the
>hostility.
From Tom? PPOSTFU. You can't. Strawman arguments impress nobody.
>>
>>>*(Had the original request been observed, this would not have
>>>happened).
>>
>>Again, you urged Tom to present the data.
>
>RM: This does not negate the firm request that everything be agreed
>upon BEFORE data was presented.
But you *did* agree. Keep lying, you are up for a special achievement award
in the field of kookery.
>>
>>>(3) No assurance was given that the dates supplied had not been
>>>"doctored" (that is: key dates removed before being submitted).
>>
>>I don't think it's reasonable to believe that if such assurance
>>had been given you would have performed any better.
>
>RM: That's absurd! If the dates were "doctored" by the owner of the
>horoscope before being given to Tom, there would be NO HOPE of finding
>the right birth time. (Elimination of dates with conjunctions or
>oppositions to the MC + Asc would do that every time).
Got proof they weren't? Thought not.
>>
>>>*(Had the original request been observed, this would not have
>>>happened).
>>
>>You urged Tom to present the data.
>
>RM: It still does not negate the firm request for rules to be set in
>place before dates were presented.
They were. If not, the only one at fault for that is *you*.
>>
>>>(4) No provision was made for selection of 15 "appropriate events" to
>>>be selected for the test.
>>
>>But later you state that the list of events is appropriate:
>>
>> "RM: All of the events were quite appropriate"
>
>RM: The dates WERE appropriate, but had the preliminary discussions
>continued, some would probably have been replaced with more
>appropriate dates (still numbering 15).
Evasion noted, fraud.
>>
>>>*(Had the original request been observed, this would not have
>>>happened).
>>
>>You urged Tom to present the data.
>
>RM: It still does not negate the firm request for rules to be set in
>place before dates were presented.
Your fault again, idiot. You are responsible for your 'test'.
>>
>>>(5) The test itself had a low chance of success (even under normal
>>>conditions) because Tom Kerr was told that the number of dates
>>>required would be 15 --500.
>>
>>I agree that you had a low chance of success. But I don't think
>>more events would have helped. :-)
>
>RM: Well you're wrong. The chance of success is (more or less)
>directly proportional to the number of dates given within a range of
>10 --> 200
Got proof? Thought not or you would be hauling it out now.
Still waffling on that, dumbass?
Which posts are they, Ratfuck? You made the claim, trot out the fucking
evidence.
Tony Sidaway's kid
> ----------
...
>
> RM: You KNEW we were only experimenting. That was made clear in the
> very first proposition.
Yes, and you claimed, prior to the experiment, that you could achieve
certain results with specified accuracy, and you set the parameters for
the experiment.
Tom followed every one of those parameter to the letter, and you *still*
failed miserably.
You couldn't deliver.
Results count, Ray, and you delivered bad results.
You failed.
You made a false claim.
You got exposed.
You failed your own experiment, and now all you can come up with is lame
rationalizations, pathetic excuses, and dishonest backpedaling.
You're a failure, Ray.
I predicted your failure, Ray.
I succeeded in my prediction. I'm far better at this than you.
Who did you say was fucking your wife while you're not, again?
Tony Sidaway's kid
> ----------
A shitload of lame excuses, lies, and weaseling evasions.
Appropriately flushed.
Face it, Ray, you fucked up. You failed.
You're an idiot and a loser and can't be trusted to tell the simple truth.
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <9t4utn$8sj$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com>,
<cu...@tsbbearings.net> wrote:
>Backpedalling spankard Ray Murphy wrote in message
><3bf5f...@news.chariot.net.au>...
>>
>>----------
>>In article <pacJ7.9114$0N4.3...@news.shore.net>, a...@shell3.shore.net
>>(a) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <3bf45...@news.chariot.net.au>,
>>>Ray Murphy <ray...@box.net.au> wrote:
>>>>In article <7cWI7.9042$0N4.3...@news.shore.net>, a...@shell3.shore.net
>>>>(a) wrote:
>>>>>It's not often that astrologers are willing to subject their claims to a
>>>>>formal test, but recently on the newsgroup alt.astrology a test of one
>>>>>astrologer's claims was completed.
>>>>
>>>>RM: Whilst the general theme of this post is reasonably accurate (an
>>>>unusual phenomena by critics of astrology on the alt.astrology
>>>>newsgroup) it does contain some glaring errors and it also needs
>>>>clarification.
>>>
>>>You point out some objections you have to the experimental procedure,
>>>but you do not specify any "glaring errors" in the article.
>>
>>RM: The article fails to mention that:
>>(a) There is no proof supplied to confirm the stated birth time.
>
>There's also nothing to contradict it, fuckmonkey.
RM: There was no request for proof of the birth data. If you had been
keeping up with this discussion you would have realised that . The
POINT was that the "report" FAILED to mention that there was no proof
supplied.
>
>>(b) The second person is known to have TWO reported birth times
>>(according to Tom).
>
>
>Which you *still got wrong* in either case, dumbfuck.
RM: Wild guesses are not appropriate at this time Cujo. We're trying
to wrap this up without your mad comments and guesswork.
>
>>>
>>>BTW, the original article is now available on the World Wide Web at
>>>this URL:
>>>
>>> http://www.shore.net/~a/raymurphy/rectification.html
>>>
>>>>First of all, the tests were not formal ones
>>>
>>>That's fine. No claim was made that they were formal tests.
>>
>>RM: So this ought to have been mentioned in the report because some of
>>the content is only Tom's word.
>
>Which is a lot better than yours, especially since you admit to lying 85% of
>the time. Let's see some evidence that Tom lied, asshole.
RM: I wonder what the posters at sci.skeptic think of your comments
Cujo. (I never go there so I don't know).
If there ARE serious skeptics on that newsgroup they must wonder what
sort of "scientific" experiment was being conducted when crazies like
yourself are involved.
You have lied above about my supposed admission to "lying 85% of the
time" -- as if it wasn't half-obvious to the casual observer.
There was NO evidence that Tom lied -- that is your own red herring.
>
>>>
>>>>because there was no
>>>>evidence produced to support anything that Tom Kerr stated for the
>>>>first test
>>>
>>>And of course, no evidence from you to cause anyone to suspect Tom's
>>>data.
>>
>>RM: No, apart from the fact that the second birth time was one of two
>>times.
>
>You got it wrong in either case, dipshit.
RM: As I said above - you are only guessing (and in fact know nothing
about it).
>
>>>
>>>>-- and the second test was seriously flawed and was only
>>>>pursued for entertainment value.
>>>>
>>>>In the first test the following problems occurred:
>>>>
>>>>(1) Ray specifically requested that no data be supplied until an
>>>>agreement was reached about how the test should be conducted. This was
>>>>ignored by Tom and data was posted anyway. [thus making the experiment
>>>>void immediately].
>>>
>>>On the contrary, in article <3bdfe...@news.chariot.net.au> you
>>>urged Tom to present the data right away:
>>>
>>> "RM: If you think it's pathetic then why has it taken a week
>>> for you to gather some "event dates" and start co-operating
>>> with this project. Why don't you stop fooling around and see
>>> what happens?"
>>>
>>>Tom complied and presented the data, and we all saw what happened.
>>
>>RM: There was no co-operation (to the request to get everything sorted
>>out before proceeding).
>
>You are seriously deluded. You signed off on it. Keep moving the goalposts,
>Raytard.
RM: Another lie. I had stopped communicating with Tom and he had
indicated that he thought the test was not going to proceed. (So had
I). It was only when Beep asked that I decided to give an answer
because I HAD said I would give one within a week. I knew the data was
seriously flawed because of the bunching of 6 dates (out of 15) in 43
days.
I did NOT "sign-off" on anything. That is another of your incessant
lies.
>
>>>
>>>>(2) Ray's complaint that the last few dates were "too close together"
>>>>was met with hostility and ridicule -- which was rampant throughout
>>>>all of the preliminary discussions.
>>>
>>>I don't think it's reasonable to believe that if people had been
>>>less hostile you would have performed any better.
>>
>>RM: Wrong. The appropriate conditions were not met because of the
>>hostility.
>
>From Tom? PPOSTFU. You can't. Strawman arguments impress nobody.
RM: The evidence is on Google. The final rules had not been
established. The dates were "bunched up". The dates were posted before
I wanted them -- specifically AGAINST my request.
>
>>>
>>>>*(Had the original request been observed, this would not have
>>>>happened).
>>>
>>>Again, you urged Tom to present the data.
>>
>>RM: This does not negate the firm request that everything be agreed
>>upon BEFORE data was presented.
>
>But you *did* agree. Keep lying, you are up for a special achievement award
>in the field of kookery.
RM: I agreed to nothing. Look again.
There were issues still being discussed until a stalemate occurred.
The issue of "null answers" was not even discussed with Tom - and has
STILL not been resolved.
>
>>>
>>>>(3) No assurance was given that the dates supplied had not been
>>>>"doctored" (that is: key dates removed before being submitted).
>>>
>>>I don't think it's reasonable to believe that if such assurance
>>>had been given you would have performed any better.
>>
>>RM: That's absurd! If the dates were "doctored" by the owner of the
>>horoscope before being given to Tom, there would be NO HOPE of finding
>>the right birth time. (Elimination of dates with conjunctions or
>>oppositions to the MC + Asc would do that every time).
>
>Got proof they weren't? Thought not.
RM: We don't have proof of anything that would make it a valid
scientific test.
>
>>>
>>>>*(Had the original request been observed, this would not have
>>>>happened).
>>>
>>>You urged Tom to present the data.
>>
>>RM: It still does not negate the firm request for rules to be set in
>>place before dates were presented.
>
>They were. If not, the only one at fault for that is *you*.
RM: Communication had ceased. Tom & I were posting comments to
indicate that the test had been abandoned.
There was NO POINT in trying to resolve the unfinished issues -
particularly because the dates had been posted prematurely and ALSO
because there was no co-operation of any description to resolve the
"bunching of dates" problem.
>
>>>
>>>>(4) No provision was made for selection of 15 "appropriate events" to
>>>>be selected for the test.
>>>
>>>But later you state that the list of events is appropriate:
>>>
>>> "RM: All of the events were quite appropriate"
>>
>>RM: The dates WERE appropriate, but had the preliminary discussions
>>continued, some would probably have been replaced with more
>>appropriate dates (still numbering 15).
>
>Evasion noted, fraud.
RM: Fortunately your crazy comments done mean a thing.
>
>>>
>>>>*(Had the original request been observed, this would not have
>>>>happened).
>>>
>>>You urged Tom to present the data.
>>
>>RM: It still does not negate the firm request for rules to be set in
>>place before dates were presented.
>
>Your fault again, idiot. You are responsible for your 'test'.
RM: The test had been abandoned and there was no interest on either
side to resolve the outstanding issues.
>
>>>
>>>>(5) The test itself had a low chance of success (even under normal
>>>>conditions) because Tom Kerr was told that the number of dates
>>>>required would be 15 --500.
>>>
>>>I agree that you had a low chance of success. But I don't think
>>>more events would have helped. :-)
>>
>>RM: Well you're wrong. The chance of success is (more or less)
>>directly proportional to the number of dates given within a range of
>>10 --> 200
>
>Got proof? Thought not or you would be hauling it out now.
RM: Heaps of proof. I do it on a regular basis (comparing events with
known birth times). Anyone can find their own proof if they can read
an ephemeris and compare planetary positions with birth charts.
RM: I'm not waffling. There are 2 birth times for that subject, and
subsequent enquiries (today) have revealed a third time.
RM: Look for your own evidence on these threads big-mouth.
>
>>>
>>>>Further trials will be gladly undertaken AFTER the rules are firmly
>>>>set in place. These trials can take 2 forms:
>>>>(a) Strictly formal -- where evidence is supplied for all relevant
>>>>data; or
>>>>(b) Informal trials -- where evidence is taken at face value.
>>>>
>>>>Ray Murphy
Ray
ALT.ASTROLOGY.MODERATED
http://readystump.algebra.com/~aam/
The best place on the net to discuss
astrology in the English language.
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <9t564h$37$0...@dosa.alt.net>, Tony Sidaway's kid
<""confused\"@thefreakhousefrom hell.org> wrote:
>Ray Murphy wrote:
>
>> ----------
>
>...
>
>
>>
>> RM: You KNEW we were only experimenting. That was made clear in the
>> very first proposition.
>
>
>Yes, and you claimed, prior to the experiment, that you could achieve
>certain results with specified accuracy, and you set the parameters for
>the experiment.
RM: And they were NOT followed.
>
>Tom followed every one of those parameter to the letter, and you *still*
>failed miserably.
RM: He did NOT.
>
>You couldn't deliver.
>
>Results count, Ray, and you delivered bad results.
RM: I delivered "A RESULT" within one week (like I said I would) -
even though the first experiment was seriously flawed.
>
>
>You failed.
>
>You made a false claim.
RM: Get a grip on reality here. I made a claim.
>
>You got exposed.
RM: A Lie.
>
>You failed your own experiment, and now all you can come up with is lame
>rationalizations, pathetic excuses, and dishonest backpedaling.
RM: I'm still waiting to proceed with propers tests AFTER we get some
rules in place - which has STILL not happened yet.
>
>You're a failure, Ray.
RM: You're a liar.
>
>I predicted your failure, Ray.
RM: Poor prediction because there has been no valid test yet :-)>
>
>I succeeded in my prediction. I'm far better at this than you.
RM: It's a pity you didn't "predict" an *invalid* experiment (blind
Fredy could see it coming from Day 1)!
>
>Who did you say was fucking your wife while you're not, again?
RM: You sound a bit peeved. Perhaps you had better find some other
thread that is less distressing for you.
Ray
ALT.ASTROLOGY.MODERATED
http://readystump.algebra.com/~aam/
The best place on the net to discuss
astrology in the English language.
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <9t56be$aq$0...@dosa.alt.net>, Tony Sidaway's kid
<""confused\"@thefreakhousefrom hell.org> wrote:
>Ray Murphy wrote:
>
>> ----------
>
>
>A shitload of lame excuses, lies, and weaseling evasions.
RM: The tests were invalid.
>
>Appropriately flushed.
RM: Good idea. Flush all this stuff out of sight because it is
obviously too distressing for you.
>
>Face it, Ray, you fucked up. You failed.
RM: Not so. I'm still waiting for valid tests to begin.
>
>You're an idiot and a loser and can't be trusted to tell the simple truth.
RM: Well you're an incessant liar on alt.astrology - so your word is
useless on that score.
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <3BF5DA3C...@yahoo.ca>, Odysseus
<odysse...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>Ray Murphy wrote:
>>
>> Maybe NEXT time the skeptic will OBSERVE any request to WAIT until the
>> rules are SET before going off half-cocked :-)>
>
>I'm coming into this discussion late, but something puzzles me: if the
>conditions for a satisfactory test hadn't been met, why did you go ahead
>and present rectified birth times determined from inadequate data?
RM: Because I said I would supply an answer to the first test within a
week.
* It was made very clear that I was not satisfied with the "bunched up
dates" but no resolution was forthcoming.
* It was made clear that no dates should be posted until the rules
were established but this was ignored.
* There was no resolution (or response from Tom) about the issue of
"null answers".
>If the test "went off half-cocked", surely you must accept some
>responsibility for that?
RM: It didn't matter at that stage. (I had nothing to lose if I was
wrong because it was clearly an invalid test).
If I had NOT replied I DID have something to lose -- because I said I
would give an answer within a week.
>No-one's mentioned there having been a deadline
>to meet: it's not surprising that your going ahead with the
>rectification was understood by the skeptics to imply your acceptance of
>the conditions as they stood.
RM: This is explained to some extent above.
>
>--Odysseus
Ray
[Still interested in setting up proper rules and proceeding with a
batch of these experiments]
Ray
Tony Sidaway's kid
> ----------
> In article <3BF5DA3C...@yahoo.ca>, Odysseus
> <odysse...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Ray Murphy wrote:
>>
>>>Maybe NEXT time the skeptic will OBSERVE any request to WAIT until the
>>>rules are SET before going off half-cocked :-)>
>>>
>>I'm coming into this discussion late, but something puzzles me: if the
>>conditions for a satisfactory test hadn't been met, why did you go ahead
>>and present rectified birth times determined from inadequate data?
>>
>
> RM: Because
you are a fucking idiot.
Tony Sidaway's kid
> ----------
> In article <9t56be$aq$0...@dosa.alt.net>, Tony Sidaway's kid
> <""confused\"@thefreakhousefrom hell.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Ray Murphy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>----------
>>>
>>
>>A shitload of lame excuses, lies, and weaseling evasions.
>>
>
> RM: The tests were
Valid.
>
>>Appropriately flushed.
>>
>
> RM: Good idea. Flush all this stuff out of sight because it is
> obviously too distressing for you.
It's not distressing at all.
In fact, it's a wonderful tool for illuminating the fraud that dishonest
fucks like you try to perpetrate on people.
>
>>Face it, Ray, you fucked up. You failed.
>>
>
> RM: Not so. I'm still waiting for valid tests to begin.
You're simply calling tests that *you* failed "invalid".
It doesn't wash, Ray.
It's like the bad student blaming everything but himself when he flunks
an important test.
>
>>You're an idiot and a loser and can't be trusted to tell the simple truth.
>>
>
> RM: Well you're right.
>
> Ray
I'm always right, Ray.
Tony Sidaway's kid
> ----------
> In article <9t564h$37$0...@dosa.alt.net>, Tony Sidaway's kid
> <""confused\"@thefreakhousefrom hell.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Ray Murphy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>----------
>>>
>>...
>>
>>
>>
>>>RM: You KNEW we were only experimenting. That was made clear in the
>>>very first proposition.
>>>
>>
>>Yes, and you claimed, prior to the experiment, that you could achieve
>>certain results with specified accuracy, and you set the parameters for
>>the experiment.
>>
>
> RM: And they were NOT followed.
WRONG, LIAR. THEY WERE FOLLOWED TO THE LETTER.
>
>>Tom followed every one of those parameter to the letter, and you *still*
>>failed miserably.
>>
>
> RM: He did NOT.
He absolutely did. We all saw it. More pathetic than your denial is your
failure to recognize i when it's pointed out to you.
>
>>You couldn't deliver.
>>
>>Results count, Ray, and you delivered bad results.
>>
>
> RM: I delivered "A RESULT" within one week
A FAILED result, Ray.
>
>>
>>You failed.
>>
>>You made a false claim.
>>
>
> RM: Get a grip on reality here. I made a claim.
You made a claim you couldn't back up when tested. Ergo, your claim was
false.
>
>>You got exposed.
>>
>
> RM: A Lie.
Yes, your lie was exposed.
>
>>You failed your own experiment, and now all you can come up with is lame
>>rationalizations, pathetic excuses, and dishonest backpedaling.
>>
>
> RM: I'm still waiting to proceed with propers tests
There won't be any that involve you, now.
One of the conditions for a proper test is that the participants be
honest--and you're not.
Not only were these tests valid for disproving your claims but they were
also valid for proving your pathological need to lie.
>
>>You're a failure, Ray.
>>
>
> RM: You're hitting the target.
I know I am, Ray.
>
>>I predicted your failure, Ray.
>>
>
> RM: Good prediction. Good on ya, mate.
Fair dinkum.
>
>>I succeeded in my prediction. I'm far better at this than you.
>>
>
> RM: It's true.
I know it's true. that's why I said it.
>
>>Who did you say was fucking your wife while you're not, again?
> RM: A few mates from down at the pub. Did you know she
>can accommodate a Foster's can in both holes at the same time?
I was not aware of that.
Tony Sidaway's kid
Hey Ray!
I have a new User-Agent Header that you can copy and paste so you can
then can spunk all over yourself for having the superhuman sleuthing
skills needed to detect that sekrit information.
cu...@tsbbearings.net
>
>----------
>In article <3BF5DA3C...@yahoo.ca>, Odysseus
><odysse...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Ray Murphy wrote:
>>>
>>> Maybe NEXT time the skeptic will OBSERVE any request to WAIT until the
>>> rules are SET before going off half-cocked :-)>
>>
>>I'm coming into this discussion late, but something puzzles me: if the
>>conditions for a satisfactory test hadn't been met, why did you go ahead
>>and present rectified birth times determined from inadequate data?
>
>RM: Because I said I would supply an answer to the first test within a
>week.
You did do that much after a number of evasions centering on the cherry
picking of data which made you look even more ridiculous. You also failed.
>* It was made very clear that I was not satisfied with the "bunched up
>dates" but no resolution was forthcoming.
More delusion, you failed even with dates spread out over 26 years.
>* It was made clear that no dates should be posted until the rules
>were established but this was ignored.
By *you*.
>* There was no resolution (or response from Tom) about the issue of
>"null answers".
Another evasion. A null answer means that you failed to find a 'fudge
factor' you could work with. Considering that rectification is simply an
execise in fudging facts to fit data to your own liking, I'd say a null
answer is a failure.
>>If the test "went off half-cocked", surely you must accept some
>>responsibility for that?
>
>RM: It didn't matter at that stage. (I had nothing to lose if I was
>wrong because it was clearly an invalid test).
That's right, you already were a failure, Mr. Smouldering Crater.
>If I had NOT replied I DID have something to lose -- because I said I
>would give an answer within a week.
No, you only had something to gain since you were already discredited by you
own actions and words. You had nothing to lose. Don't blame others for
backing yourself into a corner.
>>No-one's mentioned there having been a deadline
>>to meet: it's not surprising that your going ahead with the
>>rectification was understood by the skeptics to imply your acceptance of
>>the conditions as they stood.
>
>RM: This is explained to some extent above.
Weaseling noted, weasel-boi.
cu...@tsbbearings.net
>In article <9t56be$aq$0...@dosa.alt.net>, Tony Sidaway's kid
><""confused\"@thefreakhousefrom hell.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Ray Murphy wrote:
>>
>>> ----------
>>
>>
>>A shitload of lame excuses, lies, and weaseling evasions.
>
>RM: The tests were invalid.
No, they were a failure. You should be used to that by now.
>>
>>Appropriately flushed.
>
>RM: Good idea. Flush all this stuff out of sight because it is
>obviously too distressing for you.
Obviously you're too stupid to notice the irony.
>>
>>Face it, Ray, you fucked up. You failed.
>
>RM: Not so. I'm still waiting for valid tests to begin.
Let's wait until you are finished whining about your failures.
>>
>>You're an idiot and a loser and can't be trusted to tell the simple truth.
>
>RM: Well you're an incessant liar on alt.astrology - so your word is
>useless on that score.
Strawman noted. I notice you post no proof. Please continue weaseling and
evading, the entertainment value alone sets astrology back to the Stone Age.
cu...@tsbbearings.net
<3bf68...@news.chariot.net.au>...
You did a great job 'marginalizing' me, shitforbranes. I notice you did a
great job doing the same for Bob. It really sucks to be you.
>>
>>>(b) The second person is known to have TWO reported birth times
>>>(according to Tom).
>>
>>
>>Which you *still got wrong* in either case, dumbfuck.
>
>RM: Wild guesses are not appropriate at this time Cujo. We're trying
>to wrap this up without your mad comments and guesswork.
The guesswork seems to be all on your side.
>>
>>>>
>>>>BTW, the original article is now available on the World Wide Web at
>>>>this URL:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.shore.net/~a/raymurphy/rectification.html
>>>>
>>>>>First of all, the tests were not formal ones
>>>>
>>>>That's fine. No claim was made that they were formal tests.
>>>
>>>RM: So this ought to have been mentioned in the report because some of
>>>the content is only Tom's word.
>>
>>Which is a lot better than yours, especially since you admit to lying 85%
of
>>the time. Let's see some evidence that Tom lied, asshole.
>
>RM: I wonder what the posters at sci.skeptic think of your comments
>Cujo. (I never go there so I don't know).
Why are you worried about what they think? I doubt many will answer only
because you've presented no evidence other than waffling.
>If there ARE serious skeptics on that newsgroup they must wonder what
>sort of "scientific" experiment was being conducted when crazies like
>yourself are involved.
Stay away from mirrors, Ray. Strawman noted. I didn't supply the data or set
up the test, so my involvement is irrelevant.
>You have lied above about my supposed admission to "lying 85% of the
>time" -- as if it wasn't half-obvious to the casual observer.
Have I? Go back and look at your own words.
>There was NO evidence that Tom lied -- that is your own red herring.
You claimed you were fed bad data after the fact.
>>>>
>>>>>because there was no
>>>>>evidence produced to support anything that Tom Kerr stated for the
>>>>>first test
>>>>
>>>>And of course, no evidence from you to cause anyone to suspect Tom's
>>>>data.
>>>
>>>RM: No, apart from the fact that the second birth time was one of two
>>>times.
>>
>>You got it wrong in either case, dipshit.
>
>RM: As I said above - you are only guessing (and in fact know nothing
>about it).
Wrong. You are the one guessing, not to mention failing.
You claimed you could do it. Face up to your failure and a waste of 17
years.
>I did NOT "sign-off" on anything. That is another of your incessant
>lies.
That's the way, Ray. Paint yourself into a corner and blame the brush.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>(2) Ray's complaint that the last few dates were "too close together"
>>>>>was met with hostility and ridicule -- which was rampant throughout
>>>>>all of the preliminary discussions.
>>>>
>>>>I don't think it's reasonable to believe that if people had been
>>>>less hostile you would have performed any better.
>>>
>>>RM: Wrong. The appropriate conditions were not met because of the
>>>hostility.
>>
>>From Tom? PPOSTFU. You can't. Strawman arguments impress nobody.
>
>RM: The evidence is on Google. The final rules had not been
>established. The dates were "bunched up". The dates were posted before
>I wanted them -- specifically AGAINST my request.
You then made a choice and failed. Accept that. *You failed*.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>*(Had the original request been observed, this would not have
>>>>>happened).
>>>>
>>>>Again, you urged Tom to present the data.
>>>
>>>RM: This does not negate the firm request that everything be agreed
>>>upon BEFORE data was presented.
>>
>>But you *did* agree. Keep lying, you are up for a special achievement
award
>>in the field of kookery.
>
>RM: I agreed to nothing. Look again.
No, I think not. You've already discredited yourself and the study of
astrology. You can't even keep track of your clumsy lies. I thought I was
'marginalized'? That lasted a whole day. You can't even get that right, why
trust you on more important issues?
>There were issues still being discussed until a stalemate occurred.
>The issue of "null answers" was not even discussed with Tom - and has
>STILL not been resolved.
OK, a null answer means you have failed. If you can cherry-pic data then you
haven't made a proper test. Happy?
>>
>>>>
>>>>>(3) No assurance was given that the dates supplied had not been
>>>>>"doctored" (that is: key dates removed before being submitted).
>>>>
>>>>I don't think it's reasonable to believe that if such assurance
>>>>had been given you would have performed any better.
>>>
>>>RM: That's absurd! If the dates were "doctored" by the owner of the
>>>horoscope before being given to Tom, there would be NO HOPE of finding
>>>the right birth time. (Elimination of dates with conjunctions or
>>>oppositions to the MC + Asc would do that every time).
>>
>>Got proof they weren't? Thought not.
>
>RM: We don't have proof of anything that would make it a valid
>scientific test.
Got plenty of proof of a failed test, Ray. Occam's Razor, baby.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>*(Had the original request been observed, this would not have
>>>>>happened).
>>>>
>>>>You urged Tom to present the data.
>>>
>>>RM: It still does not negate the firm request for rules to be set in
>>>place before dates were presented.
>>
>>They were. If not, the only one at fault for that is *you*.
>
>RM: Communication had ceased. Tom & I were posting comments to
>indicate that the test had been abandoned.
Backpedal noted and laughed at.
>There was NO POINT in trying to resolve the unfinished issues -
>particularly because the dates had been posted prematurely and ALSO
>because there was no co-operation of any description to resolve the
>"bunching of dates" problem.
IOW, your theory has a lot of holes in it and you wanted only data that
supported you.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>(4) No provision was made for selection of 15 "appropriate events" to
>>>>>be selected for the test.
>>>>
>>>>But later you state that the list of events is appropriate:
>>>>
>>>> "RM: All of the events were quite appropriate"
>>>
>>>RM: The dates WERE appropriate, but had the preliminary discussions
>>>continued, some would probably have been replaced with more
>>>appropriate dates (still numbering 15).
>>
>>Evasion noted, fraud.
>
>RM: Fortunately your crazy comments done mean a thing.
Nor does your Strawman.
>>>>
>>>>>*(Had the original request been observed, this would not have
>>>>>happened).
>>>>
>>>>You urged Tom to present the data.
>>>
>>>RM: It still does not negate the firm request for rules to be set in
>>>place before dates were presented.
>>
>>Your fault again, idiot. You are responsible for your 'test'.
>
>RM: The test had been abandoned and there was no interest on either
>side to resolve the outstanding issues.
Because you waffled on many points, tried to cherry pick data and basically
kept changing your claims.
>>>>
>>>>>(5) The test itself had a low chance of success (even under normal
>>>>>conditions) because Tom Kerr was told that the number of dates
>>>>>required would be 15 --500.
>>>>
>>>>I agree that you had a low chance of success. But I don't think
>>>>more events would have helped. :-)
>>>
>>>RM: Well you're wrong. The chance of success is (more or less)
>>>directly proportional to the number of dates given within a range of
>>>10 --> 200
>>
>>Got proof? Thought not or you would be hauling it out now.
>
>RM: Heaps of proof. I do it on a regular basis (comparing events with
>known birth times). Anyone can find their own proof if they can read
>an ephemeris and compare planetary positions with birth charts.
So post the proof, Ray. Evasion noted.
Got proof? Or is the '3rd birth time' still outside the window of your
'adjusted' birth time? I suspect that is the case or you would have posted
your evidence. You still failed.
I did, it indicates you weaseled before, after and during the 'testing'.
Comma abuse noted.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>Further trials will be gladly undertaken AFTER the rules are firmly
>>>>>set in place. These trials can take 2 forms:
>>>>>(a) Strictly formal -- where evidence is supplied for all relevant
>>>>>data; or
>>>>>(b) Informal trials -- where evidence is taken at face value.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ray Murphy
>
SPANK!
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <9t69k6$3pn$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com>,
<cu...@tsbbearings.net> wrote:
RM: You don't know the other birth time that was available. That means
you WERE guessing..
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>BTW, the original article is now available on the World Wide Web at
>>>>>this URL:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.shore.net/~a/raymurphy/rectification.html
>>>>>
>>>>>>First of all, the tests were not formal ones
>>>>>
>>>>>That's fine. No claim was made that they were formal tests.
>>>>
>>>>RM: So this ought to have been mentioned in the report because some of
>>>>the content is only Tom's word.
>>>
>>>Which is a lot better than yours, especially since you admit to lying 85%
>of
>>>the time. Let's see some evidence that Tom lied, asshole.
>>
>>RM: I wonder what the posters at sci.skeptic think of your comments
>>Cujo. (I never go there so I don't know).
>
>Why are you worried about what they think? I doubt many will answer only
>because you've presented no evidence other than waffling.
RM: If there are any skeptics (who are interested in astrology), they
may be discerning enough to pick fact from fiction.
>
>>If there ARE serious skeptics on that newsgroup they must wonder what
>>sort of "scientific" experiment was being conducted when crazies like
>>yourself are involved.
>
>Stay away from mirrors, Ray. Strawman noted. I didn't supply the data or set
>up the test, so my involvement is irrelevant.
RM: You are (unfortunately) "involved".
>
>>You have lied above about my supposed admission to "lying 85% of the
>>time" -- as if it wasn't half-obvious to the casual observer.
>
>Have I? Go back and look at your own words.
RM: AS IF. (Who claims that they lie 85% of the time Cujo) - Get Real!
>
>>There was NO evidence that Tom lied -- that is your own red herring.
>
>
>You claimed you were fed bad data after the fact.
RM: I claimed that the data was defective BEFORE the fact. I had hoped
that the "bunching up" of dates would be seen as a valid reason to
supply a few replacement dates, but there was NO RESPONSE.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>>because there was no
>>>>>>evidence produced to support anything that Tom Kerr stated for the
>>>>>>first test
>>>>>
>>>>>And of course, no evidence from you to cause anyone to suspect Tom's
>>>>>data.
>>>>
>>>>RM: No, apart from the fact that the second birth time was one of two
>>>>times.
>>>
>>>You got it wrong in either case, dipshit.
>>
>>RM: As I said above - you are only guessing (and in fact know nothing
>>about it).
>
>
>Wrong. You are the one guessing, not to mention failing.
RM: No guessing here. No failing either because the tests were
invalid.
I DID FAIL to give the correct answer, but I did not fail the test(s)
because they were patently invalid tests according to the conditions
that had been *partly* established - but never completed.
RM: I'm still doing qute nicely with ordinary rectifications, so it
follows that properly conducted experiments will yield something
before too long (once we actually get started).
>
>>I did NOT "sign-off" on anything. That is another of your incessant
>>lies.
>
>That's the way, Ray. Paint yourself into a corner and blame the brush.
RM: I did not agree to proceed with either test because the
discussions about the rules were not complete.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>(2) Ray's complaint that the last few dates were "too close together"
>>>>>>was met with hostility and ridicule -- which was rampant throughout
>>>>>>all of the preliminary discussions.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't think it's reasonable to believe that if people had been
>>>>>less hostile you would have performed any better.
>>>>
>>>>RM: Wrong. The appropriate conditions were not met because of the
>>>>hostility.
>>>
>>>From Tom? PPOSTFU. You can't. Strawman arguments impress nobody.
>>
>>RM: The evidence is on Google. The final rules had not been
>>established. The dates were "bunched up". The dates were posted before
>>I wanted them -- specifically AGAINST my request.
>
>You then made a choice and failed. Accept that. *You failed*.
RM: I supplied "An Answer" to the first (invalid) test, as I said I
would.
The answer itself was of no consequence because I was working with
inferior data which I declared beforehand.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>*(Had the original request been observed, this would not have
>>>>>>happened).
>>>>>
>>>>>Again, you urged Tom to present the data.
>>>>
>>>>RM: This does not negate the firm request that everything be agreed
>>>>upon BEFORE data was presented.
>>>
>>>But you *did* agree. Keep lying, you are up for a special achievement
>award
>>>in the field of kookery.
>>
>>RM: I agreed to nothing. Look again.
>
>No, I think not. You've already discredited yourself and the study of
>astrology. You can't even keep track of your clumsy lies. I thought I was
>'marginalized'? That lasted a whole day. You can't even get that right, why
>trust you on more important issues?
RM: You apparently don't know what "marginalized" means in the context
in which it was used.
>
>>There were issues still being discussed until a stalemate occurred.
>>The issue of "null answers" was not even discussed with Tom - and has
>>STILL not been resolved.
>
>
>OK, a null answer means you have failed. If you can cherry-pic data then you
>haven't made a proper test. Happy?
RM: A "null" answer does not mean failure. We are talking about "hits
+ misses". That is a valid criteria to use in any statistical test as
far as I know but it would need to be confirmed by a few people who
are up to date with this type of experiment.
Cherry picking (as you call it) is probably quite normal in every
field of research. For example if a geologist checked everything on a
conveyer belt for gold content (including old boots, oil cans and
bottles) he would get an erroneous result - BUT if he excluded
everything except quartz - he is "cherry picking" in your book :-)>
Junk is not used in my work either.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>(3) No assurance was given that the dates supplied had not been
>>>>>>"doctored" (that is: key dates removed before being submitted).
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't think it's reasonable to believe that if such assurance
>>>>>had been given you would have performed any better.
>>>>
>>>>RM: That's absurd! If the dates were "doctored" by the owner of the
>>>>horoscope before being given to Tom, there would be NO HOPE of finding
>>>>the right birth time. (Elimination of dates with conjunctions or
>>>>oppositions to the MC + Asc would do that every time).
>>>
>>>Got proof they weren't? Thought not.
>>
>>RM: We don't have proof of anything that would make it a valid
>>scientific test.
>
>
>Got plenty of proof of a failed test, Ray. Occam's Razor, baby.
RM: There was NO valid test - so therefore no failed test. Get the
idea now?
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>*(Had the original request been observed, this would not have
>>>>>>happened).
>>>>>
>>>>>You urged Tom to present the data.
>>>>
>>>>RM: It still does not negate the firm request for rules to be set in
>>>>place before dates were presented.
>>>
>>>They were. If not, the only one at fault for that is *you*.
>>
>>RM: Communication had ceased. Tom & I were posting comments to
>>indicate that the test had been abandoned.
>
>Backpedal noted and laughed at.
RM: It is a fact - once again, easily seen on Google :-)>
>
>>There was NO POINT in trying to resolve the unfinished issues -
>>particularly because the dates had been posted prematurely and ALSO
>>because there was no co-operation of any description to resolve the
>>"bunching of dates" problem.
>
>IOW, your theory has a lot of holes in it and you wanted only data that
>supported you.
RM: Not at all.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>(4) No provision was made for selection of 15 "appropriate events" to
>>>>>>be selected for the test.
>>>>>
>>>>>But later you state that the list of events is appropriate:
>>>>>
>>>>> "RM: All of the events were quite appropriate"
>>>>
>>>>RM: The dates WERE appropriate, but had the preliminary discussions
>>>>continued, some would probably have been replaced with more
>>>>appropriate dates (still numbering 15).
>>>
>>>Evasion noted, fraud.
>>
>>RM: Fortunately your crazy comments done mean a thing.
>
>Nor does your Strawman.
RM: You're wasting your time until you start talking factually.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>>*(Had the original request been observed, this would not have
>>>>>>happened).
>>>>>
>>>>>You urged Tom to present the data.
>>>>
>>>>RM: It still does not negate the firm request for rules to be set in
>>>>place before dates were presented.
>>>
>>>Your fault again, idiot. You are responsible for your 'test'.
>>
>>RM: The test had been abandoned and there was no interest on either
>>side to resolve the outstanding issues.
>
>
>Because you waffled on many points, tried to cherry pick data and basically
>kept changing your claims.
RM: Not true.
There WERE more conditions that would have been included if the
preliminary discussions had not broken down, but they will be dealt
with on the next experiment.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>>(5) The test itself had a low chance of success (even under normal
>>>>>>conditions) because Tom Kerr was told that the number of dates
>>>>>>required would be 15 --500.
>>>>>
>>>>>I agree that you had a low chance of success. But I don't think
>>>>>more events would have helped. :-)
>>>>
>>>>RM: Well you're wrong. The chance of success is (more or less)
>>>>directly proportional to the number of dates given within a range of
>>>>10 --> 200
>>>
>>>Got proof? Thought not or you would be hauling it out now.
>>
>>RM: Heaps of proof. I do it on a regular basis (comparing events with
>>known birth times). Anyone can find their own proof if they can read
>>an ephemeris and compare planetary positions with birth charts.
>
>
>So post the proof, Ray. Evasion noted.
RM: You ask for proof and studiously note an evasion with your next
words (not very patient are you?)
RM: No one has put forward documentary evidence to support any of the
(now) 3 supposed birth times.
RM: I'm glad you noticed *some* dis-satisfaction BEFORE.
Ray Murphy
In article <9t67pv$3g6$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com>,
<cu...@tsbbearings.net> wrote:
>Ray Murphy wrote in message <3bf68...@news.chariot.net.au>...
>>
>>----------
>>In article <3BF5DA3C...@yahoo.ca>, Odysseus
>><odysse...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ray Murphy wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Maybe NEXT time the skeptic will OBSERVE any request to WAIT until the
>>>> rules are SET before going off half-cocked :-)>
>>>
>>>I'm coming into this discussion late, but something puzzles me: if the
>>>conditions for a satisfactory test hadn't been met, why did you go ahead
>>>and present rectified birth times determined from inadequate data?
>>
>>RM: Because I said I would supply an answer to the first test within a
>>week.
>
>You did do that much after a number of evasions centering on the cherry
>picking of data which made you look even more ridiculous. You also failed.
RM: As I keep saying: The conditions were not finalised and were also
broken before we started - so there was no failure of the test because
it (the first one) was invalid.
The second test doesn't even count because it was WAY outside the
rules.
>
>>* It was made very clear that I was not satisfied with the "bunched up
>>dates" but no resolution was forthcoming.
>
>More delusion, you failed even with dates spread out over 26 years.
RM: The bunching up of dates (alone) made the test invalid (and
unworkable).
>
>>* It was made clear that no dates should be posted until the rules
>>were established but this was ignored.
>
>By *you*.
RM: By Tom. He posted the dates AFTER being asked to wait for
conditions to be set in place.
(I knew that it would not be fair if I asked for dates to be swapped
AFTER I had seen them - which is why I didn't WANT to see them.
>
>>* There was no resolution (or response from Tom) about the issue of
>>"null answers".
>
>
>Another evasion. A null answer means that you failed to find a 'fudge
>factor' you could work with. Considering that rectification is simply an
>execise in fudging facts to fit data to your own liking, I'd say a null
>answer is a failure.
RM: We are talking about "hits + misses" only.
I'll put it in language taht a simpleton like yourself can understand.
Now r e a d - s l o w l y - ok?
If you (Cujo) were at a carnival or sideshow where people fire pellet
guns at the moving metal ducks, and you had 10 slugs to fire. What if
you bypassed 45 ducks but hit 8 and missed 2" - Would you consider
yourself a failure? NO.
If on the other hand you were at an FBI firing range where cardboard
"baddies" popped up at windows and doorways and you had 45 bullets to
fire but only used 10 and achieved 8 hits and 2 misses - you would be
a failure (for not trying).
Therefore with proper statistical analysis of this sort of test, we
need to discern which analogy is appropriate.
>
>>>If the test "went off half-cocked", surely you must accept some
>>>responsibility for that?
>>
>>RM: It didn't matter at that stage. (I had nothing to lose if I was
>>wrong because it was clearly an invalid test).
>
>That's right, you already were a failure, Mr. Smouldering Crater.
RM: You're wandering off-topic here.
>
>>If I had NOT replied I DID have something to lose -- because I said I
>>would give an answer within a week.
>
>
>No, you only had something to gain since you were already discredited by you
>own actions and words. You had nothing to lose. Don't blame others for
>backing yourself into a corner.
RM: The facts Cujo - the facts.
I won't repeat them all again just now.
>
>>>No-one's mentioned there having been a deadline
>>>to meet: it's not surprising that your going ahead with the
>>>rectification was understood by the skeptics to imply your acceptance of
>>>the conditions as they stood.
>>
>>RM: This is explained to some extent above.
>
>
>Weaseling noted, weasel-boi.
RM: Deal with the facts Cujo - you're just digging yourself into a
deeper hole with every stupid post.
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <9t66gn$h9e$0...@pita.alt.net>, Tony Sidaway's kid
<""confused\"@thefreakhousefrom hell.org> wrote:
>Ray Murphy wrote:
>
>> ----------
>> In article <9t564h$37$0...@dosa.alt.net>, Tony Sidaway's kid
>> <""confused\"@thefreakhousefrom hell.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Ray Murphy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>----------
>>>>
>>>...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>RM: You KNEW we were only experimenting. That was made clear in the
>>>>very first proposition.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, and you claimed, prior to the experiment, that you could achieve
>>>certain results with specified accuracy, and you set the parameters for
>>>the experiment.
>>>
>>
>> RM: And they were NOT followed.
>
>
>WRONG, LIAR. THEY WERE FOLLOWED TO THE LETTER.
RM: The conditions were NOT followed.
>
>
>>
>>>Tom followed every one of those parameter to the letter, and you *still*
>>>failed miserably.
>>>
>>
>> RM: He did NOT.
>
>
>He absolutely did. We all saw it. More pathetic than your denial is your
>failure to recognize i when it's pointed out to you.
RM: The conditions were not all set in place - partly becaise all
communication had ceased beforehand.
>
>
>>
>>>You couldn't deliver.
>>>
>>>Results count, Ray, and you delivered bad results.
>>>
>>
>> RM: I delivered "A RESULT" within one week
>
>
>A FAILED result, Ray.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>You failed.
>>>
>>>You made a false claim.
>>>
>>
>> RM: Get a grip on reality here. I made a claim.
>
>
>You made a claim you couldn't back up when tested. Ergo, your claim was
>false.
>
>
>>
>>>You got exposed.
>>>
>>
>> RM: A Lie.
>
>
>Yes, your lie was exposed.
>
>
>>
>>>You failed your own experiment, and now all you can come up with is lame
>>>rationalizations, pathetic excuses, and dishonest backpedaling.
>>>
>>
>> RM: I'm still waiting to proceed with propers tests
>
>
>There won't be any that involve you, now.
RM: Wait and see. I can arrange it easily.
>
>One of the conditions for a proper test is that the participants be
>honest--and you're not.
RM: Not true.
>
>Not only were these tests valid for disproving your claims but they were
>also valid for proving your pathological need to lie.
RM: Not true. Check the records.
cu...@tsbbearings.net
>
>----------
>In article <9t69k6$3pn$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com>,
><cu...@tsbbearings.net> wrote:
>
lied again or both. Which is it?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You really suck at this, in fact you suck at everything. Do you have any
failures to discuss, loser?
<whining excuses and waffling by Ray snipped.>
Edvins Augusts
Ray Murphy wrote:
>
> .
> ----------
> In article <9t66gn$h9e$0...@pita.alt.net>, Tony Sidaway's kid
> <""confused\"@thefreakhousefrom hell.org> wrote:
>
> >Ray Murphy wrote:
> >
> >> ----------
> >> In article <9t564h$37$0...@dosa.alt.net>, Tony Sidaway's kid
> >> <""confused\"@thefreakhousefrom hell.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Ray Murphy wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>----------
> >>>>
> >>>...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>RM: You KNEW we were only experimenting. That was made clear in the
> >>>>very first proposition.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Yes, and you claimed, prior to the experiment, that you could achieve
> >>>certain results with specified accuracy, and you set the parameters for
> >>>the experiment.
> >>>
> >>
> >> RM: And they were NOT followed.
> >
> >
> >WRONG, LIAR. THEY WERE FOLLOWED TO THE LETTER.
>
> RM: The conditions were NOT followed.
You're lying again. You asked for three specific conditions and TOm met
every one of them.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>Tom followed every one of those parameter to the letter, and you *still*
> >>>failed miserably.
> >>>
> >>
> >> RM: He did NOT.
> >
> >
> >He absolutely did. We all saw it. More pathetic than your denial is your
> >failure to recognize i when it's pointed out to you.
>
> RM: The conditions were not all set in place -
Oh yes, they certainly were. Your intent to move the goalposts after the
fact have nothing to to with the fact that Tom met every one of your own
criteria, placed PRIOR to the experiments beginning.
>. partly becaise all
> communication had ceased beforehand.
That's not true. Once again, you are lying. There was plenty of
comunication. Even after you claimed you would stop communicating, you
couldn't even manage that.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>You couldn't deliver.
> >>>
> >>>Results count, Ray, and you delivered bad results.
> >>>
> >>
> >> RM: I delivered "A RESULT" within one week
> >
> >
> >A FAILED result, Ray.
I note no response. I''ll take it as a tacit admission.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>You failed.
> >>>
> >>>You made a false claim.
> >>>
> >>
> >> RM: Get a grip on reality here. I made a claim.
> >
> >
> >You made a claim you couldn't back up when tested. Ergo, your claim was
> >false.
I note no response. I''ll take it as a tacit admission.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>You got exposed.
> >>>
> >>
> >> RM: A Lie.
> >
> >
> >Yes, your lie was exposed.
I note no response. I''ll take it as a tacit admission.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>You failed your own experiment, and now all you can come up with is lame
> >>>rationalizations, pathetic excuses, and dishonest backpedaling.
> >>>
> >>
> >> RM: I'm still waiting to proceed with propers tests
> >
> >
> >There won't be any that involve you, now.
>
> RM: Wait and see. I can arrange it easily.
That's obviously very far from the truth. When you try to arrange
things, they fail.
> >
> >One of the conditions for a proper test is that the participants be
> >honest--and you're not.
>
> RM: Not true.
It is true. You're v e r y dishonest, by your own admission.
> >
> >Not only were these tests valid for disproving your claims but they were
> >also valid for proving your pathological need to lie.
>
> RM: Not true. Check the records.
I've checked the records. You've been found guilty.
Edvins Augusts
Ray Murphy wrote:
Waffling snipped.
Edvins Augusts
Ray Murphy wrote:
whining flushed.
el...@no.spam
Ray Murphy <ray...@box.net.au> wrote:
>>Ray has a funny habit of not being able to actually do the
>>things he says he can.
>RM: This has noting to do with an analysis of the tests.
Only to the fraud that's trying to weasel out of the results.
>RM: You KNEW we were only experimenting. That was made clear in
>the very first proposition.
So? Experimenting or not you still FAILED. Get it, dumbo? Do
you understand how much your whining would be destroying your
credibility if you had any left?
el...@no.spam
Ray Murphy <ray...@box.net.au> wrote:
>RM: You sound a bit peeved. Perhaps you had better find some
>other thread that is less distressing for you.
He doesn't sound peeved at all, Ray. But *you* sound quite
desperate. Here's a free hint: your failure won't fade away until
you stop whining about it.
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <10060571...@no.spam.spinics.net>, el...@no.spam ()
wrote:
RM: My credibility is fine, but yours in in serious jeopardy.
Ray
ALT.ASTROLOGY.MODERATED
http://readystump.algebra.com/~aam/
The best place on the net to discuss
astrology in the English language.
el...@no.spam
Ray Murphy <ray...@box.net.au> wrote:
>>So? Experimenting or not you still FAILED. Get it, dumbo? Do
>>you understand how much your whining would be destroying your
>>credibility if you had any left?
>RM: My credibility is fine,
Yeah, right.
>but yours in in serious jeopardy.
For what? All I've done is honestly point out your dishonesty. I
know you don't like that, but too fucking bad.
How does it serve you to be so deluded, Ray?
el...@no.spam
problems with:
>>>RM: The article fails to mention that:
>>>(a) There is no proof supplied to confirm the stated birth time.
>>There's also nothing to contradict it, fuckmonkey.
>RM: There was no request for proof of the birth data.
Then why did you bring it up?
>If you had been keeping up with this discussion you would have
>realised that . The POINT was that the "report" FAILED to
>mention that there was no proof supplied.
No, the point was you were looking for an excuse.
>>>(b) The second person is known to have TWO reported birth times
>>>(according to Tom).
>>Which you *still got wrong* in either case, dumbfuck.
>RM: Wild guesses are not appropriate at this time Cujo.
He's not guess, moron. You got it wrong no matter which time
is used. Get it?
>We're trying to wrap this up without your mad comments and
>guesswork.
TINW
el...@no.spam
Ray Murphy <ray...@box.net.au> wrote:
>>A shitload of lame excuses, lies, and weaseling evasions.
>RM: The tests were invalid.
That's a lame excuse, a lie, and a weaseling evasion. Just
like we expected from you.
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <10060572...@no.spam.spinics.net>, el...@no.spam ()
wrote:
RM: You sound like you're a slow learner so I'll tell you again: The
first test was invalid for a few reasons but I'll just give you just
two of them for now so you won't get confused:
(1) Tom posted the dates before the rules were set in place.
(2) The dates were bunched up (6 out of 15 in 43 days).
The second test as invald for a few reasons - but once again I'll just
give you two reasons to begin with:
(1) We don't have evidence of the birth time to ascertain if I was
right or wrong (Personally I think my answer was right).
(2) There were no family birth dates given.
Now if you can follow the reasons above, you can have some more.
Alan Morgan
Ray Murphy <ray...@box.net.au> wrote:
>
>----------
>In article <10060572...@no.spam.spinics.net>, el...@no.spam ()
>wrote:
>
>
>>In article <3bf68...@news.chariot.net.au>,
>>Ray Murphy <ray...@box.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>>RM: You sound a bit peeved. Perhaps you had better find some
>>>other thread that is less distressing for you.
>>
>>He doesn't sound peeved at all, Ray. But *you* sound quite
>>desperate. Here's a free hint: your failure won't fade away until
>>you stop whining about it.
>
>
>RM: You sound like you're a slow learner so I'll tell you again: The
>first test was invalid for a few reasons but I'll just give you just
>two of them for now so you won't get confused:
>(1) Tom posted the dates before the rules were set in place.
>(2) The dates were bunched up (6 out of 15 in 43 days).
The only reasonable thing to do at this point is explain "the test is
invalid for thus and so reasons" and request different data. Going
through with the test because a failure means nothing and a success
can still be counted as a success is sleazy.
>The second test as invald for a few reasons - but once again I'll just
>give you two reasons to begin with:
>(1) We don't have evidence of the birth time to ascertain if I was
>right or wrong (Personally I think my answer was right).
This is a valid point. Perhaps you should have thought of this before
suggesting the test. How do you suggest that the testee provide proof
of their birth time?
If you trust them to be honest before the test starts, then I can think
of some easy ways (produce an encrypted version or message digest of
their birthday and produce the key/original after the fact). If you
don't trust them to give you the right time then I think we have a problem.
I guess you'd have to demand a birth certificate.
Of course, how can you be sure that the important dates they give are actually
correct? Perhaps person A didn't really graduate when they said and person
B didn't get married on that date?
>(2) There were no family birth dates given.
Why is this a problem? After all, you believe your time was right. Clearly
the family birth dates aren't needed.
>Now if you can follow the reasons above, you can have some more.
Yup. You are a waffler. You'll create any reasons you can think of after
the fact to explain a failure, but you won't cancel the test because of
them because, hell, you might guess right. I'm guessing that if you had
guessed right that you wouldn't have suggested cancelling the test because
the data was invalid.
Hmmmm?
Alan
pz
amo...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) wrote:
I entirely agree. This is simply the usual awkward excuse-making we
always get from astrologers.
If this fellow really wants to demonstrate that he can do wonderful
things with birthdates, I suggest that he:
1. Clearly set out all the instructions for his protocol before he
starts.
2. Carry out a positive control -- run through the procedure with a
friend, get results that he thinks are indicative of his abilities, and
post that result. This would not only give us an example to follow, but
would also represent a measure of what constitutes success.
3. Include a negative control. Carry out the same sort of analysis with
the *wrong* birthdate for each person, and do a comparison of accuracy
with both.
4. Document each step as he goes by submitting the results to a neutral
third party.
There is always going to be the problem of trust in this kind of
experiment carried out informally over usenet, and I don't think there
are easy ways around it. However, if Murphy could actually do what he
claims to be able to do, he ought to be able to get enough signal over
the noise of intentional liars that he can convince someone capable of a
more robust experiment to do it more properly.
I predict that he won't bother.
--
pz
Ray Murphy
----------
>In article <3bf7d...@news.chariot.net.au>,
>Ray Murphy <ray...@box.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>----------
>>In article <10060572...@no.spam.spinics.net>, el...@no.spam ()
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <3bf68...@news.chariot.net.au>,
>>>Ray Murphy <ray...@box.net.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>RM: You sound a bit peeved. Perhaps you had better find some
>>>>other thread that is less distressing for you.
>>>
>>>He doesn't sound peeved at all, Ray. But *you* sound quite
>>>desperate. Here's a free hint: your failure won't fade away until
>>>you stop whining about it.
>>
>>
>>RM: You sound like you're a slow learner so I'll tell you again: The
>>first test was invalid for a few reasons but I'll just give you just
>>two of them for now so you won't get confused:
>>(1) Tom posted the dates before the rules were set in place.
>>(2) The dates were bunched up (6 out of 15 in 43 days).
[Alan commenting]
>The only reasonable thing to do at this point is explain "the test is
>invalid for thus and so reasons" and request different data. Going
>through with the test because a failure means nothing and a success
>can still be counted as a success is sleazy.
RM: Well it's good to finally hear someone talking reasonably about
this.
I'll just go over a few points:
(1) Tom had indicated that he thought I would not be participating in
the first test because he *knew* of my dissatisfaction with the way it
was set up.
(2) I wrote something on AATropical to indicate that I would not be
participating in the test.
(3) I recalled that I had actually given a commitment to supply an
answer for the first test when "Beep" on alt.astrology asked about a
result -- so I decided to honour that commitment, even though I knew I
had little chance of success.
It didn't MATTER if I was wrong - because it was not a formal test.
It wouldn't have mattered if it WAS a formal test and I got it wrong
through some unforseen anomaly -- because my contention is that when
such experiments are performed properly and honestly, there will be
more hits than misses - and consequently the final result would still
a progressively good "p number" as more tests are performed.
>
>>The second test as invald for a few reasons - but once again I'll just
>>give you two reasons to begin with:
>>(1) We don't have evidence of the birth time to ascertain if I was
>>right or wrong (Personally I think my answer was right).
>
>This is a valid point. Perhaps you should have thought of this before
>suggesting the test. How do you suggest that the testee provide proof
>of their birth time?
RM: I *did not* suggest the second test.
It was just thrown in for fun (or something).
Tom simply placed the data on alt.astrology without any preliminary
discussions about rules.
He acknowledged that the data could be biased and that the test could
be problematic.
I simply chose to have a go at it.
I did not take a week to respond to the second test -- I did it within
an hour or two because it seemed pretty obvious that if Tom was
supplying data about a well-known identity who had written an
autobiography, there was a good chance that his birth data was already
on the web somewhere -- and for me to supply an "apparent" correct
birth time a few days later would not look THAT convincing if it was
on the web somewhere.
I still haven't looked o the web, but the "stated" birth time of
11:00am may be there.
As indicated earlier, Tom acknowledged that there was a second birth
time for the subject, but he *chose* to use the one which was printed
in the autobiography (which in my opinion is urban myth) "Born at
11:00 - the same time that cricket matches traditionally start" (for
the former king of English cricket).
The second test was (as I said) just done for fun - and I think I
found the correct birth time -- irrespective of what other times have
been bandied around -- because the horoscope works like clockwork -
even for later events which I have since discovered.
>
>If you trust them to be honest before the test starts, then I can think
>of some easy ways (produce an encrypted version or message digest of
>their birthday and produce the key/original after the fact).
RM: I didn't know this was possible. It would be worth experimenting
with, to see how it works :-)
>If you
>don't trust them to give you the right time then I think we have a problem.
>I guess you'd have to demand a birth certificate.
RM: I trusted Tom to supply correct information because his career and
credibility is tied to reporting things correctly.
Normally (for formal tests) no such trust would be used, but these
were preliminary tests where the outcome would never constitute a part
of any official record of tests related to astrology or astrologers.
[Their very design precludes that].
>
>Of course, how can you be sure that the important dates they give are
>actually
>correct? Perhaps person A didn't really graduate when they said and person
>B didn't get married on that date?
RM: It doesn't matter in non-formal tests, but in formal tests we
would only be using documentary evidence - whether it be orginal
documents or simple statements given by people - which could
(possibly) be later proven to be true or false.
>
>>(2) There were no family birth dates given.
>
>Why is this a problem? After all, you believe your time was right. Clearly
>the family birth dates aren't needed.
RM: You're talking aout "belief" here. There is always a possibility
of error. My result - while extremely impressive as far as the timing
of transits was concerned (and their astrological meaning) could still
be caused by "chance".
The time I chose for the second test was THE most "active" horoscope
by far (for the 3 hour window and beyond).
>
>>Now if you can follow the reasons above, you can have some more.
>
>Yup. You are a waffler.
RM: You might be right. Normally I condense things too much but
recently (for this stuff) I've explained things in more detail -
particularly because of the constant attacks by alt.astrology regular
trouble-makers- who (incidentally) would STILL be attacking even if I
got both answers right :-)>
>You'll create any reasons you can think of after
>the fact to explain a failure, but you won't cancel the test because of
>them because, hell, you might guess right.
RM: I hope you don't have the impression that anything is riding on
all of this :-)
These discussions between the antagonists and myself are just routine
on alt.astrology. If we were not discussing this, tey would be calling
me a kook or a fraud etc - no matter WHAT I said.
It's just a game for them.
>I'm guessing that if you had
>guessed right that you wouldn't have suggested cancelling the test because
>the data was invalid.
RM: Well I didn't "guess" - I simply counted the most common
(relevant) factors- but you're right - I would have shut up if the
answers corresponded with the times which Tom had.
>
>Hmmmm?
RM: In any case this whole exercise has been very worthwhile so far
because we are getting a lot closer to developing a workable system
for further tests.
There are still some obvious things that need to be fixed - and I
daresay there will be others which are discovered in future tests.
The essential thing is that both parties *agree* on the conditions
before starting next time.
>
>Alan
Ray
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <pzm-1FBC24.1...@laurel.tc.umn.edu>, pz
<p...@mac.com> wrote:
RM: Excuses would be minimised if the rules were followed. The
essential condition of not posting the data until the rules were set,
was not observed and this naturally resulted in cries of "hedging"
when it was pointed out the dates were bunched up too closely (6 in 43
recent days out of 40 years).
>
>If this fellow really wants to demonstrate that he can do wonderful
>things with birthdates, I suggest that he:
>
>1. Clearly set out all the instructions for his protocol before he
>starts.
RM: This was being attempted, but co-operation and discussion stalled.
>
>2. Carry out a positive control -- run through the procedure with a
>friend, get results that he thinks are indicative of his abilities, and
>post that result. This would not only give us an example to follow, but
>would also represent a measure of what constitutes success.
RM: This is what was being attempted.
>
>3. Include a negative control. Carry out the same sort of analysis with
>the *wrong* birthdate for each person, and do a comparison of accuracy
>with both.
RM: The birth date is not an issue. The birth time can be found quite
independently of a birth date - because the answer is a local sidereal
time. This can be imposed on any birth date and converted to the
appropriate clock time,
>
>4. Document each step as he goes by submitting the results to a neutral
>third party.
RM: I cannot see the value in this yet. I would have thought that the
results were all that mattered.
>
>There is always going to be the problem of trust in this kind of
>experiment carried out informally over usenet, and I don't think there
>are easy ways around it. However, if Murphy could actually do what he
>claims to be able to do, he ought to be able to get enough signal over
>the noise of intentional liars that he can convince someone capable of a
>more robust experiment to do it more properly.
>
>I predict that he won't bother.
>
>--
>pz
RM: I am straining at the leash to continue.
pz
"Ray Murphy" <ray...@box.net.au> wrote:
The only obstacle right now is yourself. Nobody is holding you back.
Design the experiment and lay out the rules *first*. You don't need to
negotiate to do this -- say what you need and what you can do, and give
an example as described above for the positive control.
And stop making excuses.
--
pz
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <n94gvtchi7g0r9op5...@4ax.com>, Bob Officer
<bobof...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On 18 Nov 2001 19:39:35 GMT, amo...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan)
>in alt.astrology wrote:
>
>>In article <3bf7d...@news.chariot.net.au>,
>>Ray Murphy <ray...@box.net.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>----------
>>>In article <10060572...@no.spam.spinics.net>, el...@no.spam ()
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <3bf68...@news.chariot.net.au>,
>>>>Ray Murphy <ray...@box.net.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>RM: You sound a bit peeved. Perhaps you had better find some
>>>>>other thread that is less distressing for you.
>>>>
>>>>He doesn't sound peeved at all, Ray. But *you* sound quite
>>>>desperate. Here's a free hint: your failure won't fade away until
>>>>you stop whining about it.
>>>
>>>
>>>RM: You sound like you're a slow learner so I'll tell you again: The
>>>first test was invalid for a few reasons but I'll just give you just
>>>two of them for now so you won't get confused:
>>>(1) Tom posted the dates before the rules were set in place.
>>>(2) The dates were bunched up (6 out of 15 in 43 days).
>>
>>The only reasonable thing to do at this point is explain "the test is
>>invalid for thus and so reasons" and request different data. Going
>>through with the test because a failure means nothing and a success
>>can still be counted as a success is sleazy.
>
>This problem was not mentioned at the time of discussion.
RM: The problem of dates being bunched up WAS mentioned but no
response was forthcoming (other than the typical insults from the
alt.astrology ferals).
>
>>>The second test as invald for a few reasons - but once again I'll just
>>>give you two reasons to begin with:
>>>(1) We don't have evidence of the birth time to ascertain if I was
>>>right or wrong (Personally I think my answer was right).
>>
>>This is a valid point. Perhaps you should have thought of this before
>>suggesting the test. How do you suggest that the testee provide proof
>>of their birth time?
>
>This is an interesting Bent and show how much Ray Murphy has worked to
>sustain his denial.
RM: Tom's word was going to be accepted in these preliminary
(informal) trials.
>
>>If you trust them to be honest before the test starts, then I can think
>>of some easy ways (produce an encrypted version or message digest of
>>their birthday and produce the key/original after the fact). If you
>>don't trust them to give you the right time then I think we have a problem.
>>I guess you'd have to demand a birth certificate.
>
>Ray has stated the time on all birth certificates are suspect because
>no one truly known what time is the actual birth.
RM: I have not stated that birth times on all birth certificates are
suspect at all -- get your facts straight Bob.
I have merely pointed out that astrologers typically find that
horoscopes have to be moved up to 10 minutes from recorded birth
times.
>It is when the head
>begins to crown, the head is entirely exposed, the child's body is
>free or the cord is clipped? Ray has already got a waffle out even
>when he is wrong.
RM: I have reported what is well known. That is not waffling.
>
>>Of course, how can you be sure that the important dates they give are
>actually
>>correct? Perhaps person A didn't really graduate when they said and person
>>B didn't get married on that date?
>
>he has manage to bring up this point too.
RM: And it's a valid point of course.
>
>>>(2) There were no family birth dates given.
>>
>>Why is this a problem? After all, you believe your time was right. Clearly
>>the family birth dates aren't needed.
>
>He didn't specify this point. Often times those astrologers that Prey
>on Rubes tend to single out Adoptees.
RM: I have never heard of this. That's an astonishing observation Bob.
>These people are those that are
>looking for their birth parents. The birth certificate for most
>adoptees in the US have the date munged, often -+48 hours. I have
>known of cases where the astrologer has taken the rubes for
>$500-$1000, to 'rectify a chart'.
RM: I've had charts here for 10 years for which still have no answer -
even with occasional updates of important events.
>
>If an astrologer needs as ray suggests family birth dates, Then no
>adoptee can ever get a chart rectified.
RM: Family birth dates are NOT essential. I merely asked for them as a
preference -- especially when working with an absolute minimum number
of dates.
>
>That is if Ray is correct... :)
>
>>>Now if you can follow the reasons above, you can have some more.
>>
>>Yup. You are a waffler. You'll create any reasons you can think of after
>>the fact to explain a failure, but you won't cancel the test because of
>>them because, hell, you might guess right. I'm guessing that if you had
>>guessed right that you wouldn't have suggested cancelling the test because
>>the data was invalid.
>
>Ray is not only a waffler, he exist in the an area called denial. He
>denies failures. he even denies his on intentions.
RM: I see you continually ignore the facts. The conditions for the
test were NOT finalized or observed.
>Ray is a up and
>coming scam artist... One that appears to be ready to take an
>unsuspecting rubes ca$h, If he has not already done so. He has talked
>about doing rectification for pay.
RM: I don't sue people and I don't use kill files on usenet, but if I
did I would be doing both to you Bob Officer.
>
>--
>Nokwsi
Tom Kerr
>Ray Murphy <ray...@box.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>----------
>>In article <10060572...@no.spam.spinics.net>, el...@no.spam ()
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <3bf68...@news.chariot.net.au>,
>>>Ray Murphy <ray...@box.net.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>RM: You sound a bit peeved. Perhaps you had better find some
>>>>other thread that is less distressing for you.
>>>
>>>He doesn't sound peeved at all, Ray. But *you* sound quite
>>>desperate. Here's a free hint: your failure won't fade away until
>>>you stop whining about it.
>>
>>
>>RM: You sound like you're a slow learner so I'll tell you again: The
>>first test was invalid for a few reasons but I'll just give you just
>>two of them for now so you won't get confused:
>>(1) Tom posted the dates before the rules were set in place.
>>(2) The dates were bunched up (6 out of 15 in 43 days).
>
>The only reasonable thing to do at this point is explain "the test is
>invalid for thus and so reasons" and request different data. Going
>through with the test because a failure means nothing and a success
>can still be counted as a success is sleazy.
The data were presented *after* Ray urged me to get on with the data
collection.
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=3bdfe3ea_3%40news.chariot.net.au
"RM: If you think it's pathetic then why has it taken a week for you to
gather some "event dates" and start co-operating with this project.
Why don't you stop fooling around and see what happens?"
At this point there had been no mention that the dates should be spaced
out. All I did was follow Ray's specifications for the test *precisely*.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3bd61888_1%40news.chariot.net.au
"We should do a test run for rectification on AA, AAMod or AAT
whereby someone who has a recorded birth time (unknown to any other
posters) and we are given a time frame of (say) 3 hours where the
birth time is, and a short list of event dates."
The type of data needed was discussed and I was satisfied - Ray provided a
list of what would be considered "events" and said a minimum of 15 dates
were required. I gave the list to a friend and he provided the data which
I posted.
Before the data were presented, there was a lot of discussion about the
test, but this was about what would be considered a "hit". Ray started off
claiming an accuracy of +/- 2% for a rectified birth time, but later
changed it to +/- 15 minutes, which would mean a 1 in 6 chance of getting
a "hit" just by chance. I was unhappy with this, but presented the data
anyway, and in exactly the way Ray had requested.
In any case, I fail to see how bunching up the events in any
way invalidates such a test. The whole point of rectification is to find a
birth time based on significant events in a person's life. If a lot of
significant things occur to someone in a short period of time and not much
else happens for a considerable amount of time, then it seems astrological
rectification can't work in this type of situation.
>>The second test as invald for a few reasons - but once again I'll just
>>give you two reasons to begin with:
>>(1) We don't have evidence of the birth time to ascertain if I was
>>right or wrong (Personally I think my answer was right).
>
>This is a valid point. Perhaps you should have thought of this before
>suggesting the test. How do you suggest that the testee provide proof
>of their birth time?
The birth time was taken from an autobiography and I gave the name of the
book and publisher after Ray had presented his result so that he or anyone
else could check the book itself.
The other birth time was found on the web and was placed there by someone
entirely unrelated to the autobiographer. What to believe? The guy's
autobiography or something someone else puts on the internet?
>If you trust them to be honest before the test starts, then I can think
>of some easy ways (produce an encrypted version or message digest of
>their birthday and produce the key/original after the fact). If you
>don't trust them to give you the right time then I think we have a problem.
>I guess you'd have to demand a birth certificate.
It's unfortunate, but not surprising, that after the two tests, Ray is now
doubting the honesty of those who took part in the test - the person who
presented the event data to me, and myself.
>Of course, how can you be sure that the important dates they give are actually
>correct? Perhaps person A didn't really graduate when they said and person
>B didn't get married on that date?
For the second test, the information is not only in the autobiography, but
since the person was a famous sports star, the events I mentioned are
available from official records.
>
>>(2) There were no family birth dates given.
>
>Why is this a problem? After all, you believe your time was right. Clearly
>the family birth dates aren't needed.
This wasn't a requirement in the first place and another example of
changing those requirements after the fact.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3bd6c7e0_4%40news.chariot.net.au
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <pzm-876F20.1...@laurel.tc.umn.edu>, pz
<p...@mac.com> wrote:
RM: I have made it clear several times that I'm ready to proceed with
any new tests.
There are still a few obstacles which have not yet been resolved. One
is the question of counting "hits, misses and null answers".
Officer Bob from alt.astrology is demading that where "no answer" is
found, that the result is counted as a "miss" - and while I agree that
"null answers" should be recorded for posterity as an outcome, I think
that for statistical purposes this sort of experiment ought to be
conducted or designed whereby only hits + misses are counted.
Resolving this question (based on existing statistical models) will
prevent unnecessary comment afterwards.
>Design the experiment and lay out the rules *first*. You don't need to
>negotiate to do this -- say what you need and what you can do, and give
>an example as described above for the positive control.
RM: Contary to what you say, there IS a need to negotiate for these
reasons:
(1) Because people will often present events which are inappropriate
and these need to be sorted out before the dates are given.
(2) Some people don't have parents' or partners' birthdates (believe
it or not).
(3) Some people may not have an original record of birth time, so
assessment needs to be made about the value of proceeding, or the
value of the birth time they have in their posession.
(4) Some people will not be prepared to divulge (on usenet) other
people's birth dates, and alternative dates may be needed.
(5) We need to agree upon a system of proving the birth time which the
participant holds - even if it is done electronically through some
internet system.
(6) Some unforseen problem could occur (as it did in the first test)
and this could be fixed before dates are posted.
(7) There is a high chance that if data was supplied by one of the
alt.astrology trouble-makers, then I would not be proceeding. If a
dialogue was not in place it could be seen as renegging or failing to
provide an answer.
Everything needs to be sorted out BEFORE starting and if agreement is
reached we then proceed.
>
>And stop making excuses.
RM: The excuses or replies are merely answers to a stream of angry
comments by alt.astrology ferals.
Those replies will probably continue until they get sick of it.
>
>--
>pz
cu...@tsbbearings.net
DOOP! So it's a 'project' and not a test? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!1!!!!
>At this point there had been no mention that the dates should be spaced
>out. All I did was follow Ray's specifications for the test *precisely*.
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3bd61888_1%40news.chariot.net.au
>
>"We should do a test run for rectification on AA, AAMod or AAT
>whereby someone who has a recorded birth time (unknown to any other
>posters) and we are given a time frame of (say) 3 hours where the
>birth time is, and a short list of event dates."
So much for Raytards claim of needing the birth time as he whined after his
spectacular failure.
>The type of data needed was discussed and I was satisfied - Ray provided a
>list of what would be considered "events" and said a minimum of 15 dates
>were required. I gave the list to a friend and he provided the data which
>I posted.
>
>Before the data were presented, there was a lot of discussion about the
>test, but this was about what would be considered a "hit". Ray started off
>claiming an accuracy of +/- 2% for a rectified birth time, but later
>changed it to +/- 15 minutes, which would mean a 1 in 6 chance of getting
>a "hit" just by chance. I was unhappy with this, but presented the data
>anyway, and in exactly the way Ray had requested.
Geez! After all that and Ray still failed.
>In any case, I fail to see how bunching up the events in any
>way invalidates such a test. The whole point of rectification is to find a
>birth time based on significant events in a person's life. If a lot of
>significant things occur to someone in a short period of time and not much
>else happens for a considerable amount of time, then it seems astrological
>rectification can't work in this type of situation.
Or it doesn't work at all. It's basically just fudging data to fit what
someone *thinks* it should be.
>>>The second test as invald for a few reasons - but once again I'll just
>>>give you two reasons to begin with:
>>>(1) We don't have evidence of the birth time to ascertain if I was
>>>right or wrong (Personally I think my answer was right).
>>
>>This is a valid point. Perhaps you should have thought of this before
>>suggesting the test. How do you suggest that the testee provide proof
>>of their birth time?
>
>The birth time was taken from an autobiography and I gave the name of the
>book and publisher after Ray had presented his result so that he or anyone
>else could check the book itself.
DOOP! <sings> When the red, red bottom of the spanked, spanked Raytard comes
hob-hob-hobbling along....... </sings>
>The other birth time was found on the web and was placed there by someone
>entirely unrelated to the autobiographer. What to believe? The guy's
>autobiography or something someone else puts on the internet?
I can think of several bogus sources of rectification.
>>If you trust them to be honest before the test starts, then I can think
>>of some easy ways (produce an encrypted version or message digest of
>>their birthday and produce the key/original after the fact). If you
>>don't trust them to give you the right time then I think we have a
problem.
>>I guess you'd have to demand a birth certificate.
>
>It's unfortunate, but not surprising, that after the two tests, Ray is now
>doubting the honesty of those who took part in the test - the person who
>presented the event data to me, and myself.
Since Ray lies 85% of the time, I'm sure he expects the same behavior in
others. Sad, isn't it?
>>Of course, how can you be sure that the important dates they give are
actually
>>correct? Perhaps person A didn't really graduate when they said and
person
>>B didn't get married on that date?
>
>For the second test, the information is not only in the autobiography, but
>since the person was a famous sports star, the events I mentioned are
>available from official records.
Ray, DYOFDW.
>>>(2) There were no family birth dates given.
>>
>>Why is this a problem? After all, you believe your time was right.
Clearly
>>the family birth dates aren't needed.
>
>This wasn't a requirement in the first place and another example of
>changing those requirements after the fact.
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3bd6c7e0_4%40news.chariot.net.au
DOOP!
>>>Now if you can follow the reasons above, you can have some more.
>>
>>Yup. You are a waffler. You'll create any reasons you can think of after
>>the fact to explain a failure, but you won't cancel the test because of
>>them because, hell, you might guess right. I'm guessing that if you had
>>guessed right that you wouldn't have suggested cancelling the test because
>>the data was invalid.
>>
>>Hmmmm?
>>
I'd like to suggest an award handed out in AA for the person who manages to
hang themselves using their own words. For the sake of simplicity the
"DOOP!" Award should be handed out by acclamation. Since this can happen
many times to the same person, I imagine it should not be a 'lifetime
achievement' award.
I suggest Raytard be our first candidate. For some competition I also
suggest Tony 'with the baloney' Sidaway for his continuing obssessive
meltdown over 'red stucco' and lunch invitations that happened over 18
months ago. Let the hilarity begin. The Overseer of Kooks and Trolls will
make the final decision on the lucky winner.
Vote early and vote often.
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <tvghjne...@news.supernews.com>, t...@lava.net (Tom
Kerr) wrote:
RM: Notwithstanding this, the original specific request for the rules
to be sorted out beforehand was not met.
The final "urging" to present data was after a ridiculous string of
argument where nothing was being resolved.
No co-operation resulted from my complaint that the data was bunched
to closely together.
>
>"RM: If you think it's pathetic then why has it taken a week for you to
>gather some "event dates" and start co-operating with this project.
>Why don't you stop fooling around and see what happens?"
>
>At this point there had been no mention that the dates should be spaced
>out. All I did was follow Ray's specifications for the test *precisely*.
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3bd61888_1%40news.chariot.net.au
RM: This goes to demonstrate the frustration and lack of co-operation.
>
>"We should do a test run for rectification on AA, AAMod or AAT
>whereby someone who has a recorded birth time (unknown to any other
>posters) and we are given a time frame of (say) 3 hours where the
>birth time is, and a short list of event dates."
>
>The type of data needed was discussed and I was satisfied - Ray provided a
>list of what would be considered "events" and said a minimum of 15 dates
>were required. I gave the list to a friend and he provided the data which
>I posted.
>
>Before the data were presented, there was a lot of discussion about the
>test, but this was about what would be considered a "hit". Ray started off
>claiming an accuracy of +/- 2% for a rectified birth time, but later
>changed it to +/- 15 minutes, which would mean a 1 in 6 chance of getting
>a "hit" just by chance. I was unhappy with this, but presented the data
>anyway, and in exactly the way Ray had requested.
RM: As I've told you NUMEROUS times, I said the CHART would be
accurate +/- 2 mins.
I did ot say at any time that the chart time would be within 2 mins of
a recorded tme -- in fact I frequently say that there is +/- 10 mins
difference between a rectified chart time and a recorded time - and in
this test I allowed +/- 15 mins in case there was slight recording
error.
>
>In any case, I fail to see how bunching up the events in any
>way invalidates such a test. The whole point of rectification is to find a
>birth time based on significant events in a person's life. If a lot of
>significant things occur to someone in a short period of time and not much
>else happens for a considerable amount of time, then it seems astrological
>rectification can't work in this type of situation.
RM: One of the systems used is the simple method of checking transits
to possible MC's + Ascendants. If dates are bunched up, all repetitive
degrees are dropped - thus making them useless because if they are
left in they create a strong bias towards a particular answer.
>
>>>The second test as invald for a few reasons - but once again I'll just
>>>give you two reasons to begin with:
>>>(1) We don't have evidence of the birth time to ascertain if I was
>>>right or wrong (Personally I think my answer was right).
>>
>>This is a valid point. Perhaps you should have thought of this before
>>suggesting the test. How do you suggest that the testee provide proof
>>of their birth time?
>
>The birth time was taken from an autobiography and I gave the name of the
>book and publisher after Ray had presented his result so that he or anyone
>else could check the book itself.
RM: The test itself was interesting but because there was no certainty
about the birth time the results should not be reported without
*mention* of this essential information.
>
>The other birth time was found on the web and was placed there by someone
>entirely unrelated to the autobiographer. What to believe? The guy's
>autobiography or something someone else puts on the internet?
RM: It is well known that many public figures give out erroneous
information so that astrologers will not be able to read their
horoscopes accurately. It is also well known that people perpetrate
family myths about birth times.
>
>>If you trust them to be honest before the test starts, then I can think
>>of some easy ways (produce an encrypted version or message digest of
>>their birthday and produce the key/original after the fact). If you
>>don't trust them to give you the right time then I think we have a problem.
>>I guess you'd have to demand a birth certificate.
>
>It's unfortunate, but not surprising, that after the two tests, Ray is now
>doubting the honesty of those who took part in the test - the person who
>presented the event data to me, and myself.
RM: I have said more than once that I believe that Tom passed on the
correct information. I merely pointed out that a report of the tests
should have mentioned the source of the information to indicate its
value.
I have *not* excluded the possibility that the person who gave Tom the
data knew how to remove "key dates" to give a false impression --
although I doubt this happened.
Anyone skeptical of astrology (and who knew a little about it) could
easily remove key dates and throw in other (valid) dates to give a
false reading.
>
>>Of course, how can you be sure that the important dates they give are
>actually
>>correct? Perhaps person A didn't really graduate when they said and person
>>B didn't get married on that date?
>
>For the second test, the information is not only in the autobiography, but
>since the person was a famous sports star, the events I mentioned are
>available from official records.
RM: The dates from the autobiography were perfect.
>
>>
>>>(2) There were no family birth dates given.
>>
>>Why is this a problem? After all, you believe your time was right. Clearly
>>the family birth dates aren't needed.
>
>This wasn't a requirement in the first place and another example of
>changing those requirements after the fact.
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3bd6c7e0_4%40news.chariot.net.au
RM: The FIRST suggestion for "important dates" was PARENTS.
The subject of the first experiment provided parents' birthdates as
well as partners - because he apparently assumed that the first
suggestions were important.
>
>>>Now if you can follow the reasons above, you can have some more.
>>
>>Yup. You are a waffler. You'll create any reasons you can think of after
>>the fact to explain a failure, but you won't cancel the test because of
>>them because, hell, you might guess right. I'm guessing that if you had
>>guessed right that you wouldn't have suggested cancelling the test because
>>the data was invalid.
>>
>>Hmmmm?
>>
>>Alan
Ray
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <9t9ikl$suc$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com>,
<cu...@tsbbearings.net> wrote:
RM: Err.. Cujo -- have a look at the reply before you go howling too
much :-)>
>
>>At this point there had been no mention that the dates should be spaced
>>out. All I did was follow Ray's specifications for the test *precisely*.
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3bd61888_1%40news.chariot.net.au
>>
>>"We should do a test run for rectification on AA, AAMod or AAT
>>whereby someone who has a recorded birth time (unknown to any other
>>posters) and we are given a time frame of (say) 3 hours where the
>>birth time is, and a short list of event dates."
>
>
>So much for Raytards claim of needing the birth time as he whined after his
>spectacular failure.
RM: Down Cujo .. down! There WAS no such claim.
>
>>The type of data needed was discussed and I was satisfied - Ray provided a
>>list of what would be considered "events" and said a minimum of 15 dates
>>were required. I gave the list to a friend and he provided the data which
>>I posted.
>>
>>Before the data were presented, there was a lot of discussion about the
>>test, but this was about what would be considered a "hit". Ray started off
>>claiming an accuracy of +/- 2% for a rectified birth time, but later
>>changed it to +/- 15 minutes, which would mean a 1 in 6 chance of getting
>>a "hit" just by chance. I was unhappy with this, but presented the data
>>anyway, and in exactly the way Ray had requested.
>
>
>Geez! After all that and Ray still failed.
RM: You apparently still don't know what that was all about. Look at
my reply to Tom.
>
>>In any case, I fail to see how bunching up the events in any
>>way invalidates such a test. The whole point of rectification is to find a
>>birth time based on significant events in a person's life. If a lot of
>>significant things occur to someone in a short period of time and not much
>>else happens for a considerable amount of time, then it seems astrological
>>rectification can't work in this type of situation.
>
>
>Or it doesn't work at all. It's basically just fudging data to fit what
>someone *thinks* it should be.
RM: all will be revealed if you look at my reply.
Bunching of dates is not permissable.
>
>>>>The second test as invald for a few reasons - but once again I'll just
>>>>give you two reasons to begin with:
>>>>(1) We don't have evidence of the birth time to ascertain if I was
>>>>right or wrong (Personally I think my answer was right).
>>>
>>>This is a valid point. Perhaps you should have thought of this before
>>>suggesting the test. How do you suggest that the testee provide proof
>>>of their birth time?
>>
>>The birth time was taken from an autobiography and I gave the name of the
>>book and publisher after Ray had presented his result so that he or anyone
>>else could check the book itself.
>
>
>DOOP! <sings> When the red, red bottom of the spanked, spanked Raytard comes
>hob-hob-hobbling along....... </sings>
RM: Concentrate Cujo -- Tom just agreed that the second birth time is
not proven to be correct.
>
>>The other birth time was found on the web and was placed there by someone
>>entirely unrelated to the autobiographer. What to believe? The guy's
>>autobiography or something someone else puts on the internet?
>
>>>If you trust them to be honest before the test starts, then I can think
>>>of some easy ways (produce an encrypted version or message digest of
>>>their birthday and produce the key/original after the fact). If you
>>>don't trust them to give you the right time then I think we have a
>problem.
>>>I guess you'd have to demand a birth certificate.
>>
>>It's unfortunate, but not surprising, that after the two tests, Ray is now
>>doubting the honesty of those who took part in the test - the person who
>>presented the event data to me, and myself.
>
>
>Since Ray lies 85% of the time, I'm sure he expects the same behavior in
>others. Sad, isn't it?
RM: You've really messed up here Cujo.
You're supposed to do that on trees.
>
>>>Of course, how can you be sure that the important dates they give are
>actually
>>>correct? Perhaps person A didn't really graduate when they said and
>person
>>>B didn't get married on that date?
>>
>>For the second test, the information is not only in the autobiography, but
>>since the person was a famous sports star, the events I mentioned are
>>available from official records.
>
>
>Ray, DYOFDW.
RM: Cujo old son. The birth time is not proven. NO amount of conniving
on your part will alter that fact.
>
>>>>(2) There were no family birth dates given.
>>>
>>>Why is this a problem? After all, you believe your time was right.
>Clearly
>>>the family birth dates aren't needed.
>>
>>This wasn't a requirement in the first place and another example of
>>changing those requirements after the fact.
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3bd6c7e0_4%40news.chariot.net.au
>
>
>DOOP!
RM: Read the post Cujo. Parents were FIRST on the list (and the first
subject provided them first).
cu...@tsbbearings.net
Because you kept waffling and moving the goalposts.
>The final "urging" to present data was after a ridiculous string of
>argument where nothing was being resolved.
ITYM the ridiculous string of waffling by you.
>No co-operation resulted from my complaint that the data was bunched
>to closely together.
Which you whined about *after* beginning the test^H^H^H^Hproject.
>>"RM: If you think it's pathetic then why has it taken a week for you to
>>gather some "event dates" and start co-operating with this project.
>>Why don't you stop fooling around and see what happens?"
>>
>>At this point there had been no mention that the dates should be spaced
>>out. All I did was follow Ray's specifications for the test *precisely*.
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3bd61888_1%40news.chariot.net.au
>
>RM: This goes to demonstrate the frustration and lack of co-operation.
It sure does! Only it's on your end, Ray.
>>
>>"We should do a test run for rectification on AA, AAMod or AAT
>>whereby someone who has a recorded birth time (unknown to any other
>>posters) and we are given a time frame of (say) 3 hours where the
>>birth time is, and a short list of event dates."
>>
>>The type of data needed was discussed and I was satisfied - Ray provided a
>>list of what would be considered "events" and said a minimum of 15 dates
>>were required. I gave the list to a friend and he provided the data which
>>I posted.
>>
>>Before the data were presented, there was a lot of discussion about the
>>test, but this was about what would be considered a "hit". Ray started off
>>claiming an accuracy of +/- 2% for a rectified birth time, but later
>>changed it to +/- 15 minutes, which would mean a 1 in 6 chance of getting
>>a "hit" just by chance. I was unhappy with this, but presented the data
>>anyway, and in exactly the way Ray had requested.
>
>RM: As I've told you NUMEROUS times, I said the CHART would be
>accurate +/- 2 mins.
Well then you failed even more. Sucks to be you.
>I did ot say at any time that the chart time would be within 2 mins of
>a recorded tme -- in fact I frequently say that there is +/- 10 mins
>difference between a rectified chart time and a recorded time - and in
>this test I allowed +/- 15 mins in case there was slight recording
>error.
And you failed miserably either way. SPANK!
>>
>>In any case, I fail to see how bunching up the events in any
>>way invalidates such a test. The whole point of rectification is to find a
>>birth time based on significant events in a person's life. If a lot of
>>significant things occur to someone in a short period of time and not much
>>else happens for a considerable amount of time, then it seems astrological
>>rectification can't work in this type of situation.
>
>RM: One of the systems used is the simple method of checking transits
>to possible MC's + Ascendants. If dates are bunched up, all repetitive
>degrees are dropped - thus making them useless because if they are
>left in they create a strong bias towards a particular answer.
But that's what you are trying to do! You're fudging data to arrive at what
is more satisfactory to your perceptions.
>>
>>>>The second test as invald for a few reasons - but once again I'll just
>>>>give you two reasons to begin with:
>>>>(1) We don't have evidence of the birth time to ascertain if I was
>>>>right or wrong (Personally I think my answer was right).
>>>
>>>This is a valid point. Perhaps you should have thought of this before
>>>suggesting the test. How do you suggest that the testee provide proof
>>>of their birth time?
>>
>>The birth time was taken from an autobiography and I gave the name of the
>>book and publisher after Ray had presented his result so that he or anyone
>>else could check the book itself.
>
>RM: The test itself was interesting but because there was no certainty
>about the birth time the results should not be reported without
>*mention* of this essential information.
Over 1.5 hours off? That's 6 times the amount you claimed it would be. You
failed, Ray. Accept it and move on.
>>
>>The other birth time was found on the web and was placed there by someone
>>entirely unrelated to the autobiographer. What to believe? The guy's
>>autobiography or something someone else puts on the internet?
>
>RM: It is well known that many public figures give out erroneous
>information so that astrologers will not be able to read their
>horoscopes accurately. It is also well known that people perpetrate
>family myths about birth times.
This is KOOKY! It's just as easy to check public records to disprove this
ridiculous backpedal. Do you really think people are afraid that astrologers
would read their chart? That's gotta be one of the stupidest and paranoid
things I've ever seen. So why are people (especially public figures who
believe your malarkey) apt to do this? I can just see all the skeptics doing
just that. You remind me of Jeffcoat, I give him a birthtime and he claims
it is false *after* he fails. If you don't understand how st00pid you sound,
get your wife to explain it to you. Either wife will do, Ray.
>>
>>>If you trust them to be honest before the test starts, then I can think
>>>of some easy ways (produce an encrypted version or message digest of
>>>their birthday and produce the key/original after the fact). If you
>>>don't trust them to give you the right time then I think we have a
problem.
>>>I guess you'd have to demand a birth certificate.
>>
>>It's unfortunate, but not surprising, that after the two tests, Ray is now
>>doubting the honesty of those who took part in the test - the person who
>>presented the event data to me, and myself.
>
>RM: I have said more than once that I believe that Tom passed on the
>correct information. I merely pointed out that a report of the tests
>should have mentioned the source of the information to indicate its
>value.
It did, you dumbfuck.
>I have *not* excluded the possibility that the person who gave Tom the
>data knew how to remove "key dates" to give a false impression --
>although I doubt this happened.
KOOKY!
>Anyone skeptical of astrology (and who knew a little about it) could
>easily remove key dates and throw in other (valid) dates to give a
>false reading.
PARANOID!
>>>Of course, how can you be sure that the important dates they give are
>>actually
>>>correct? Perhaps person A didn't really graduate when they said and
person
>>>B didn't get married on that date?
>>
>>For the second test, the information is not only in the autobiography, but
>>since the person was a famous sports star, the events I mentioned are
>>available from official records.
>
>RM: The dates from the autobiography were perfect.
HAH! Now they're OK. Make up your mind. So then you failed. Just say 'yes',
baby.
>>
>>>
>>>>(2) There were no family birth dates given.
>>>
>>>Why is this a problem? After all, you believe your time was right.
Clearly
>>>the family birth dates aren't needed.
>>
>>This wasn't a requirement in the first place and another example of
>>changing those requirements after the fact.
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3bd6c7e0_4%40news.chariot.net.au
>
>RM: The FIRST suggestion for "important dates" was PARENTS.
>The subject of the first experiment provided parents' birthdates as
>well as partners - because he apparently assumed that the first
>suggestions were important.
Then you *failed* to make it clear that it wasn't. It's your fault again.
Keep moving those goalposts.
>>
>>>>Now if you can follow the reasons above, you can have some more.
>>>
>>>Yup. You are a waffler. You'll create any reasons you can think of
after
>>>the fact to explain a failure, but you won't cancel the test because of
>>>them because, hell, you might guess right. I'm guessing that if you had
>>>guessed right that you wouldn't have suggested cancelling the test
because
>>>the data was invalid.
>>>
>>>Hmmmm?
>>>
>>>Alan
Silence noted. Ass-kicking of your kookiness noted. Damn, you really do
suck. Please do not propagate.
Michael Painter
"Ray Murphy" <ray...@box.net.au> wrote in message
news:3bf84...@news.chariot.net.au...
>
<snip>
All this eagerness.
Yet they won't do it for money.
Ray Murphy
----------
In article
<VwZJ7.117484$WW.73...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Michael
Painter" <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
RM: Say again.. most of your message didn't get through.
Ray
Michael Painter
Yes it did.
You talk of being eager for a valid test.
There's a million bucks in it for you if you can agree on such a test and
pass it.
My chart says you'll make excuses and will not do it.
Of course my chart is based on the history of those who claim astrology is
valid and claim a willingness to prove it, until faced with reality.
Ray Murphy
----------
In article
<rr_J7.175207$3d2.7...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Michael Painter" <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Ray Murphy" <ray...@box.net.au> wrote in message
>news:3bf86...@news.chariot.net.au...
>>
>> ----------
>> In article
>> <VwZJ7.117484$WW.73...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Michael
>> Painter" <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >"Ray Murphy" <ray...@box.net.au> wrote in message
>> >news:3bf84...@news.chariot.net.au...
>> >>
>> > <snip>
>> > All this eagerness.
>> >Yet they won't do it for money.
>>
>> RM: Say again.. most of your message didn't get through.
>>
>> Ray
>
>Yes it did.
>
>You talk of being eager for a valid test.
>There's a million bucks in it for you if you can agree on such a test and
>pass it.
RM: Well I'd be a dill if I didn't get my act together *before* taking
on such a challenge, wouldn't I?
I have never contemplated participating in any such circus- type
shows because I've always been skeptical about their authenticity; in
fact I haven't even bothered to check to see what is regarded as
"proof" - or what sort of "p numbers" are required for anything tested
with probability statistics, but I would imagine that there would be
a LOT of zero's in the number required.
>My chart says you'll make excuses and will not do it.
>
>Of course my chart is based on the history of those who claim astrology is
>valid and claim a willingness to prove it, until faced with reality.
RM: Well it sounds like you've been hearing from some pretty
uneducated astrologers because it's virtually impossible to test
"Astrology" because it encompasses so many things.
It IS quite possible to test isolated bits of astrology but even if a
person fails it does not mean "astrology" has failed (if you are
truthful) because it is only a *person* who has failed THAT test or
that series of tests.
pz
"Ray Murphy" <ray...@box.net.au> wrote:
[snip]
> RM: Well it sounds like you've been hearing from some pretty
> uneducated astrologers because it's virtually impossible to test
> "Astrology" because it encompasses so many things.
Utter nonsense. Astrology *claims* to be based on an empirical body of
observation -- so of course it should be testable. That it isn't is a
testimony to the fallacy of that claim.
Your comment is like someone claiming physics can't be tested because it
encompasses so many things.
[snip]
--
pz
Ray Murphy
In article <pzm-BBF1A2.2...@news.onvoy.com>, pz
<p...@mac.com> wrote:
>In article <3bf87...@news.chariot.net.au>,
> "Ray Murphy" <ray...@box.net.au> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> RM: Well it sounds like you've been hearing from some pretty
>> uneducated astrologers because it's virtually impossible to test
>> "Astrology" because it encompasses so many things.
>
>Utter nonsense. Astrology *claims* to be based on an empirical body of
>observation -- so of course it should be testable.
RM: I just finished telling you - "Astrology" (in its entirety) is NOT
testable.
It's a sort of a win-win situation for astrologers because no one can
ever prove that there IS NO correlation between human affairs and
planetary movement -- whereas astrologers (or serious researchers) may
be able to prove the contrary.
>That it isn't is a
>testimony to the fallacy of that claim.
RM: It sounds like you should be declaring what astrologers are
actually claiming.
>
>Your comment is like someone claiming physics can't be tested because it
>encompasses so many things.
RM: Exactly!
>
>[snip]
>pz
Ray
Charles Feldman
Yes, it's exactly idiotic.
Charles Feldman
Thanks for admitting what a dill you are.
cu...@tsbbearings.net
>
>"Ray Murphy" <ray...@box.net.au> wrote in message
>news:3bf86...@news.chariot.net.au...
>>
>> ----------
>> In article
>> <VwZJ7.117484$WW.73...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Michael
>> Painter" <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >"Ray Murphy" <ray...@box.net.au> wrote in message
>> >news:3bf84...@news.chariot.net.au...
>> >>
>> > <snip>
>> > All this eagerness.
>> >Yet they won't do it for money.
>>
>> RM: Say again.. most of your message didn't get through.
>>
>> Ray
>
>Yes it did.
>
>You talk of being eager for a valid test.
Provided there are rubes to judge it, only then can he move the goalposts
and not have anyone object.
>There's a million bucks in it for you if you can agree on such a test and
>pass it.
>My chart says you'll make excuses and will not do it.
Don't need a chart for that, Raytard has been backpedaling ever since he
started this little personal disaster.
>Of course my chart is based on the history of those who claim astrology is
>valid and claim a willingness to prove it, until faced with reality.
Raytard couldn't sell water in Death Valley. I'll bet Ray was hoping that
he'd get by this 'project' (Raytard's own description) and then try to snag
a few rubes. He'd never go for the JREF challenge,especially after not being
able to define his own methodology and constantly moving the goalposts
befor, during *and* after he failed so badly.
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <3BF8DA3E...@wahidoscents.org>, Charles Feldman
<chu...@wahidoscents.org> wrote:
RM: I hope you're not one of the academics from sci.skeptic because it
would be disappointing if you were.
You see I never claimed I *could* succeed over 50% of the time -- I
claimed that I felt confident that I could (based upon routine
experience in rectification).
The tests that have been started on alt.astrology were begun to find
out what *could* be done under simulated "formal experiment"
conditions.
We won't know until more tests are done if the bar has to be lowered
(and more event dates used ) or if certain extra conditions must be
met.
This exercise, while being called an informal "scientific experiment"
is itself only experimental.
It would be quite stupid to make a claim (to Randi) stating that I
*could* do it if I had not done it before under these conditions
(using a minimum number of dates).
My statement in my previous post about "being a dill if I didn't get
my act together before taking on such a challenge" was quite valid.
Your comprehension however is not valid because there was no admission
if you look at what I said.
Ray
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <9taor8$lfn$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com>,
<cu...@tsbbearings.net> wrote:
>Michael Painter wrote in message ...
>>
>>"Ray Murphy" <ray...@box.net.au> wrote in message
>>news:3bf86...@news.chariot.net.au...
>>>
>>> ----------
>>> In article
>>> <VwZJ7.117484$WW.73...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Michael
>>> Painter" <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >"Ray Murphy" <ray...@box.net.au> wrote in message
>>> >news:3bf84...@news.chariot.net.au...
>>> >>
>>> > <snip>
>>> > All this eagerness.
>>> >Yet they won't do it for money.
>>>
>>> RM: Say again.. most of your message didn't get through.
>>>
>>> Ray
>>
>>Yes it did.
>>
>>You talk of being eager for a valid test.
>
>Provided there are rubes to judge it, only then can he move the goalposts
>and not have anyone object.
RM: Perhaps I better ask -- what is a "rube"?
I've never bothered finding out before.
In any case your comment is quite irrelevant if rules are set in place
before any tests.
The goalposts MAY be moved after this series of tests, and that
doesn't matter in the least -- as long as rules are followed.
>
>>There's a million bucks in it for you if you can agree on such a test and
>>pass it.
>>My chart says you'll make excuses and will not do it.
>
>
>Don't need a chart for that, Raytard has been backpedaling ever since he
>started this little personal disaster.
RM: The fact remains that the data WAS posted prematurely, and this
precluded the introduction of dates which were not bunched up.
The fact remains that the second test (while interesting) was
nevertheless quite invalid because we still don't know the real birth
time of the subject (and that is only one reason for its invalidity).
>
>>Of course my chart is based on the history of those who claim astrology is
>>valid and claim a willingness to prove it, until faced with reality.
>
>
>Raytard couldn't sell water in Death Valley. I'll bet Ray was hoping that
>he'd get by this 'project' (Raytard's own description) and then try to snag
>a few rubes. He'd never go for the JREF challenge,especially after not being
>able to define his own methodology and constantly moving the goalposts
>befor, during *and* after he failed so badly.
RM: There's no flies about you Cujo. I see you spotted that one!
Yes I have to admit -- I couldn't define the methodology for the
experiments.
Clue: I mentioned about 30 times in various posts that we had to work
out the rules as we went along -- and the data shouldn't be posted
until then.
[I see you spotted that] Well done Cujo :-)>
The reason this happened was because I normally rectify charts with
heaps of data and have not done it with 15 dates selected by other
people in an experiment.
I daresay many other formal experiments (of astrology or anything
else) would need to go through experimental stages before a final
design is chosen. I would hope that vicious dogs are not biting at the
heels of those experimenters.
It's a interesting experience anyway -- working under adverse
conditions.
Ray
cu...@tsbbearings.net
>
>----------
>In article <9taor8$lfn$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com>,
><cu...@tsbbearings.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Michael Painter wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>"Ray Murphy" <ray...@box.net.au> wrote in message
>>>news:3bf86...@news.chariot.net.au...
>>>>
>>>> ----------
>>>> In article
>>>> <VwZJ7.117484$WW.73...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Michael
>>>> Painter" <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >"Ray Murphy" <ray...@box.net.au> wrote in message
>>>> >news:3bf84...@news.chariot.net.au...
>>>> >>
>>>> > <snip>
>>>> > All this eagerness.
>>>> >Yet they won't do it for money.
>>>>
>>>> RM: Say again.. most of your message didn't get through.
>>>>
>>>> Ray
>>>
>>>Yes it did.
>>>
>>>You talk of being eager for a valid test.
>>
>>Provided there are rubes to judge it, only then can he move the goalposts
>>and not have anyone object.
>
>RM: Perhaps I better ask -- what is a "rube"?
A rube is someone who spends money on any astrological service you provide.
You've already demonstrated that they are quite worthless.
>I've never bothered finding out before.
>In any case your comment is quite irrelevant if rules are set in place
>before any tests.
Like your last project? You moved the goalposts so often they've sent out
for a couple of truckloads of fresh sod.
>The goalposts MAY be moved after this series of tests, and that
>doesn't matter in the least -- as long as rules are followed.
After this latest decline of your credibility? Don't count on it. Hey,
Raytard, I thought I was marginalized? Obsession noted.
>>
>>>There's a million bucks in it for you if you can agree on such a test and
>>>pass it.
>>>My chart says you'll make excuses and will not do it.
>>
>>
>>Don't need a chart for that, Raytard has been backpedaling ever since he
>>started this little personal disaster.
>
>RM: The fact remains that the data WAS posted prematurely, and this
>precluded the introduction of dates which were not bunched up.
Backpedal noted. You had a chance to get the conditions defined before you
failed. You didn't and that failure, like all your others, was another
example of where you've shown you had no idea of what you were talking
about.
>The fact remains that the second test (while interesting) was
>nevertheless quite invalid because we still don't know the real birth
>time of the subject (and that is only one reason for its invalidity).
Backpedaling, waffling and goalpost moving noted. Your intellectual
dishonesty with *yourself* is noted as well. You claim 17 years experience
and you still can't get it right. Time to find a new hobby.
>>
>>>Of course my chart is based on the history of those who claim astrology
is
>>>valid and claim a willingness to prove it, until faced with reality.
>>
>>
>>Raytard couldn't sell water in Death Valley. I'll bet Ray was hoping that
>>he'd get by this 'project' (Raytard's own description) and then try to
snag
>>a few rubes. He'd never go for the JREF challenge,especially after not
being
>>able to define his own methodology and constantly moving the goalposts
>>befor, during *and* after he failed so badly.
>
>RM: There's no flies about you Cujo. I see you spotted that one!
>Yes I have to admit -- I couldn't define the methodology for the
>experiments.
But you claimed you had done this before for others. Shall we let them know
how cheated they were?
>Clue: I mentioned about 30 times in various posts that we had to work
>out the rules as we went along -- and the data shouldn't be posted
>until then.
OOPS! No data that defined whether the 'project' was successful was posted
until after you came up with a 'rectified' birth time. In a basic sense, the
data that proved whether this was successful was withheld until after the
results were in. You had a chance to challenge any of the data before you
revealed your results and failed to do so.
>[I see you spotted that] Well done Cujo :-)>
>
>The reason this happened was because I normally rectify charts with
>heaps of data and have not done it with 15 dates selected by other
>people in an experiment.
But you said it would work. After all this time you failed to test the exact
case you claimed would work *before* you decided to make a public
demonstration? Bill Gates has a job for you selling software.
>I daresay many other formal experiments (of astrology or anything
>else) would need to go through experimental stages before a final
>design is chosen. I would hope that vicious dogs are not biting at the
>heels of those experimenters.
Only if they are stupid enough to make a public claim before actually
testing it. See Peat Stapleton's Astro-Guesses for more on this.
>It's a interesting experience anyway -- working under adverse
>conditions.
>
You even had the luxury of defining the conditions. I'd suggest joining the
Skep-ti-cult, you'll feel much better after the voluntary brainwashing.
cu...@tsbbearings.net
I hope you're not one of those astrologers that thinks he can actually live
up to his claims. If that was the case, you'd be an object of ridicule....
OOPS!
>You see I never claimed I *could* succeed over 50% of the time -- I
>claimed that I felt confident that I could (based upon routine
>experience in rectification).
Geez! Another example of Ray's Revisionist History(tm)! 50% is a coin flip.
>The tests that have been started on alt.astrology were begun to find
>out what *could* be done under simulated "formal experiment"
>conditions.
IOW, nobody had done it, including you, and you still made the claims.
>We won't know until more tests are done if the bar has to be lowered
>(and more event dates used ) or if certain extra conditions must be
>met.
IOW, you still need to find the fudge factor for a birth time you are
fudging in the first place.
>This exercise, while being called an informal "scientific experiment"
>is itself only experimental.
You called it a 'project'. HTH!
>It would be quite stupid to make a claim (to Randi) stating that I
>*could* do it if I had not done it before under these conditions
>(using a minimum number of dates).
Especially after your latest failure.
>My statement in my previous post about "being a dill if I didn't get
>my act together before taking on such a challenge" was quite valid.
>Your comprehension however is not valid because there was no admission
>if you look at what I said.
Gee, you claimed you had done it before and it worked. I hope someone isn't
planning to fund future ventures in this direction. OTOH, you can't do any
much worse than you have already.
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <9taufm$okl$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com>,
<cu...@tsbbearings.net> wrote:
RM: These tests are quite different to rectification work, because
rectification involves *starting* with a birth chart and (frequently)
modifying it slightly.
No one CAN be duped.
Anyone can SEE the slight difference in the timing of the chart, so
you are quite WRONG a g a i n.
>
>>I've never bothered finding out before.
>>In any case your comment is quite irrelevant if rules are set in place
>>before any tests.
>
>Like your last project? You moved the goalposts so often they've sent out
>for a couple of truckloads of fresh sod.
RM: This is your repetitive lie.
>
>>The goalposts MAY be moved after this series of tests, and that
>>doesn't matter in the least -- as long as rules are followed.
>
>
>After this latest decline of your credibility? Don't count on it. Hey,
>Raytard, I thought I was marginalized? Obsession noted.
RM: Your participation is not required. In fact it's a hindrance.
There are plenty of opportunities to conduct further tests.
>
>>>
>>>>There's a million bucks in it for you if you can agree on such a test and
>>>>pass it.
>>>>My chart says you'll make excuses and will not do it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Don't need a chart for that, Raytard has been backpedaling ever since he
>>>started this little personal disaster.
>>
>>RM: The fact remains that the data WAS posted prematurely, and this
>>precluded the introduction of dates which were not bunched up.
>
>Backpedal noted. You had a chance to get the conditions defined before you
>failed. You didn't and that failure, like all your others, was another
>example of where you've shown you had no idea of what you were talking
>about.
RM: I did not have a chance to get the conditions defined because most
sensible communication had come to a halt.
The question about bunched-up dates was not even addressed.
The was no dialogue possible whereby Tom could be asked if the dates
were spread out, because he had submitted them prematurely.
>
>>The fact remains that the second test (while interesting) was
>>nevertheless quite invalid because we still don't know the real birth
>>time of the subject (and that is only one reason for its invalidity).
>
>
>Backpedaling, waffling and goalpost moving noted. Your intellectual
>dishonesty with *yourself* is noted as well. You claim 17 years experience
>and you still can't get it right. Time to find a new hobby.
RM: My above paragraph is true, no matter how many times you say it
isn't.
There's no need to get a new hobby because what I normally do is quite
different to this. As I said I am *starting* with a birth time so
there's NO chance of any large error.
>
>>>
>>>>Of course my chart is based on the history of those who claim astrology
>is
>>>>valid and claim a willingness to prove it, until faced with reality.
>>>
>>>
>>>Raytard couldn't sell water in Death Valley. I'll bet Ray was hoping that
>>>he'd get by this 'project' (Raytard's own description) and then try to
>snag
>>>a few rubes. He'd never go for the JREF challenge,especially after not
>being
>>>able to define his own methodology and constantly moving the goalposts
>>>befor, during *and* after he failed so badly.
>>
>>RM: There's no flies about you Cujo. I see you spotted that one!
>>Yes I have to admit -- I couldn't define the methodology for the
>>experiments.
>
>But you claimed you had done this before for others. Shall we let them know
>how cheated they were?
RM: I did not.
I have found a birth time out of the 24 hour period with a LOT of
event dates and the recorded time was subsequently discovered, but I
certainly haven't said I've done this before for others.
It's your imagination running away with you.
>
>>Clue: I mentioned about 30 times in various posts that we had to work
>>out the rules as we went along -- and the data shouldn't be posted
>>until then.
>
>OOPS! No data that defined whether the 'project' was successful was posted
>until after you came up with a 'rectified' birth time. In a basic sense, the
>data that proved whether this was successful was withheld until after the
>results were in. You had a chance to challenge any of the data before you
>revealed your results and failed to do so.
RM: I keep telling you that the data WAS challenged and that Tom did
not address the problem.
>
>>[I see you spotted that] Well done Cujo :-)>
>>
>>The reason this happened was because I normally rectify charts with
>>heaps of data and have not done it with 15 dates selected by other
>>people in an experiment.
>
>
>But you said it would work.
RM: I did not.
I claimed that I felt confident that I could get more than 50% of the
tests right. So far we haven't DONE a valid test.
>After all this time you failed to test the exact
>case you claimed would work *before* you decided to make a public
>demonstration?
RM: This WAS the first of a series of tests to achieve that very thing
- and it still will be of course.
>Bill Gates has a job for you selling software.
>
>>I daresay many other formal experiments (of astrology or anything
>>else) would need to go through experimental stages before a final
>>design is chosen. I would hope that vicious dogs are not biting at the
>>heels of those experimenters.
>
>Only if they are stupid enough to make a public claim before actually
>testing it. See Peat Stapleton's Astro-Guesses for more on this.
RM: It was not a public claim that I *could* do it at all.
The original post made it very clear that I was looking for
co-operation to do some experimental work on this newsgroup
(alt.astrology).
>
>>It's a interesting experience anyway -- working under adverse
>>conditions.
>>
>You even had the luxury of defining the conditions.
RM: I had to define the conditions to a certain extent but I made it
quite clear that WE (collectively) had to work out how it should be
done and after that process we should proceed.
Ray
pz
"Ray Murphy" <ray...@box.net.au> wrote:
> ---------
> In article <pzm-BBF1A2.2...@news.onvoy.com>, pz
> <p...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
> >In article <3bf87...@news.chariot.net.au>,
> > "Ray Murphy" <ray...@box.net.au> wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> RM: Well it sounds like you've been hearing from some pretty
> >> uneducated astrologers because it's virtually impossible to test
> >> "Astrology" because it encompasses so many things.
> >
> >Utter nonsense. Astrology *claims* to be based on an empirical body of
> >observation -- so of course it should be testable.
>
> RM: I just finished telling you - "Astrology" (in its entirety) is NOT
> testable.
> It's a sort of a win-win situation for astrologers because no one can
> ever prove that there IS NO correlation between human affairs and
> planetary movement -- whereas astrologers (or serious researchers) may
> be able to prove the contrary.
But they have not. That makes it a losing situation for you: if you
continue to claim the existence of *any* causal relationship in the
absence of any evidence, it leaves you looking like a clueless fraud.
You've also got it backwards. Astrologers claim correlations, and so
far, the easy thing to do has been to show that the purported
correlations don't exist.
>
> >That it isn't is a
> >testimony to the fallacy of that claim.
>
> RM: It sounds like you should be declaring what astrologers are
> actually claiming.
Astrologers claims are empty noise. You like to pretend that your claims
are something more substantive, but so far, that's all I'm seeing from
you.
> >
> >Your comment is like someone claiming physics can't be tested because it
> >encompasses so many things.
>
> RM: Exactly!
You didn't quite get the point, did you?
> >[snip]
--
pz
pz
"Ray Murphy" <ray...@box.net.au> wrote:
He's not. That's the morphing kook formerly known as anonym, posting
with yet another sock puppet.
> You see I never claimed I *could* succeed over 50% of the time -- I
> claimed that I felt confident that I could (based upon routine
> experience in rectification).
Is English not your native language? That's the same thing. Saying that
you feel confident that you could succeed 50% of the time is a claim
that you can succeed 50% of the time.
> The tests that have been started on alt.astrology were begun to find
> out what *could* be done under simulated "formal experiment"
> conditions.
> We won't know until more tests are done if the bar has to be lowered
> (and more event dates used ) or if certain extra conditions must be
> met.
I predict that the bar will have to be lowered very far indeed.
> This exercise, while being called an informal "scientific experiment"
> is itself only experimental.
Fancy that -- an experimental experiment.
You really do have a very odd grasp of English.
> It would be quite stupid to make a claim (to Randi) stating that I
> *could* do it if I had not done it before under these conditions
> (using a minimum number of dates).
Yes, that would be quite stupid. Do you think it is not stupid to make
similar claims to people other than Randi?
> My statement in my previous post about "being a dill if I didn't get
> my act together before taking on such a challenge" was quite valid.
> Your comprehension however is not valid because there was no admission
> if you look at what I said.
Geez. Don't take anonym so seriously -- he's a dishonest, hysterical
wacko who loves to take phrases out of context and spin out bizarre
conclusions from them.
--
pz
pz
"Ray Murphy" <ray...@box.net.au> wrote:
Yes. *Your* lack of cooperation. Tom seems to have done his best to
provide you with what you requested. His reward was that you immediately
started weaseling, and rather ironically accused him of possible
dishonesty.
Boy, does this pattern sound familiar. Do all astrologers go to a
special school where they learn this?
> >
> >"We should do a test run for rectification on AA, AAMod or AAT
> >whereby someone who has a recorded birth time (unknown to any other
> >posters) and we are given a time frame of (say) 3 hours where the
> >birth time is, and a short list of event dates."
> >
> >The type of data needed was discussed and I was satisfied - Ray provided a
> >list of what would be considered "events" and said a minimum of 15 dates
> >were required. I gave the list to a friend and he provided the data which
> >I posted.
> >
> >Before the data were presented, there was a lot of discussion about the
> >test, but this was about what would be considered a "hit". Ray started off
> >claiming an accuracy of +/- 2% for a rectified birth time, but later
> >changed it to +/- 15 minutes, which would mean a 1 in 6 chance of getting
> >a "hit" just by chance. I was unhappy with this, but presented the data
> >anyway, and in exactly the way Ray had requested.
>
> RM: As I've told you NUMEROUS times, I said the CHART would be
> accurate +/- 2 mins.
> I did ot say at any time that the chart time would be within 2 mins of
> a recorded tme -- in fact I frequently say that there is +/- 10 mins
> difference between a rectified chart time and a recorded time - and in
> this test I allowed +/- 15 mins in case there was slight recording
> error.
You said,
RM: Your attitude is disappointing. You have been told repeatedly
that a specific time will be given if an answer is found, and that
time is accurate to only +/- 2 mins. That is the time which will
give a chart that can be shown to be more sensitive to transits than
any nearby time. Now taking into account the fact that *working*
charts often vary slightly from "recorded BT charts", then we have
to allow some leeway -- otherwise skeptics will say things like:
"WRONG - you're 7 minutes out!" It is necessary therefore (for the
sake of scientific experiments) to include this leeway for such
tests to be valid.
You are clearly claiming that the results of your rectification are
accurate to within 2 minutes, and at the same time demanding 15 minutes
of leeway. A claim of 2 minutes worth of accuracy is a claim of 2
minutes worth of accuracy, not 15 minutes.
If you want to use the excuse that the recorded time on birth
certificates is often a bit inaccurate, that doesn't help you -- because
how would you have ever known that the resolution of your methods was
+/-2 minutes in the first place?
>
> >
> >In any case, I fail to see how bunching up the events in any
> >way invalidates such a test. The whole point of rectification is to find a
> >birth time based on significant events in a person's life. If a lot of
> >significant things occur to someone in a short period of time and not much
> >else happens for a considerable amount of time, then it seems astrological
> >rectification can't work in this type of situation.
>
> RM: One of the systems used is the simple method of checking transits
> to possible MC's + Ascendants. If dates are bunched up, all repetitive
> degrees are dropped - thus making them useless because if they are
> left in they create a strong bias towards a particular answer.
This is getting ridiculous.
It was not part of your original demand that dates be distributed in
some particular way.
It makes your whole premise fall apart -- you claim to be able to
discern a pattern from a few critical events in a persons life, but you
insist now that you're only going to consider events if they fall within
some predetermined distribution?
And isn't it your point that the timing of these events is SUPPOSED to
"create a strong bias towards a particular answer"?
> >
> >>>The second test as invald for a few reasons - but once again I'll just
> >>>give you two reasons to begin with:
> >>>(1) We don't have evidence of the birth time to ascertain if I was
> >>>right or wrong (Personally I think my answer was right).
> >>
> >>This is a valid point. Perhaps you should have thought of this before
> >>suggesting the test. How do you suggest that the testee provide proof
> >>of their birth time?
> >
> >The birth time was taken from an autobiography and I gave the name of the
> >book and publisher after Ray had presented his result so that he or anyone
> >else could check the book itself.
>
> RM: The test itself was interesting but because there was no certainty
> about the birth time the results should not be reported without
> *mention* of this essential information.
Just how many clues do you need to be given?
> >
> >The other birth time was found on the web and was placed there by someone
> >entirely unrelated to the autobiographer. What to believe? The guy's
> >autobiography or something someone else puts on the internet?
>
> RM: It is well known that many public figures give out erroneous
> information so that astrologers will not be able to read their
> horoscopes accurately.
Really. Do you have any evidence for this at all?
> It is also well known that people perpetrate
> family myths about birth times.
It's not well known to me.
> >
> >>If you trust them to be honest before the test starts, then I can think
> >>of some easy ways (produce an encrypted version or message digest of
> >>their birthday and produce the key/original after the fact). If you
> >>don't trust them to give you the right time then I think we have a problem.
> >>I guess you'd have to demand a birth certificate.
> >
> >It's unfortunate, but not surprising, that after the two tests, Ray is now
> >doubting the honesty of those who took part in the test - the person who
> >presented the event data to me, and myself.
>
> RM: I have said more than once that I believe that Tom passed on the
> correct information. I merely pointed out that a report of the tests
> should have mentioned the source of the information to indicate its
> value.
Incredible. Is that so you could check the source yourself?
> I have *not* excluded the possibility that the person who gave Tom the
> data knew how to remove "key dates" to give a false impression --
> although I doubt this happened.
> Anyone skeptical of astrology (and who knew a little about it) could
> easily remove key dates and throw in other (valid) dates to give a
> false reading.
> >
> >>Of course, how can you be sure that the important dates they give are
> >actually
> >>correct? Perhaps person A didn't really graduate when they said and person
> >>B didn't get married on that date?
> >
> >For the second test, the information is not only in the autobiography, but
> >since the person was a famous sports star, the events I mentioned are
> >available from official records.
>
> RM: The dates from the autobiography were perfect.
> >
> >>
> >>>(2) There were no family birth dates given.
> >>
> >>Why is this a problem? After all, you believe your time was right. Clearly
> >>the family birth dates aren't needed.
> >
> >This wasn't a requirement in the first place and another example of
> >changing those requirements after the fact.
> >
> >http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3bd6c7e0_4%40news.chariot.net.au
>
> RM: The FIRST suggestion for "important dates" was PARENTS.
> The subject of the first experiment provided parents' birthdates as
> well as partners - because he apparently assumed that the first
> suggestions were important.
This doesn't make sense. Are you now claiming that your list is in order
of priority? The first items were:
My usual suggestions for "event dates" include:
Parents birhdates
Siblings birthdates
Partners birthdates
Very good friends birthdates
Business partners birthdates
Children's birthdates
So business partner's and friend's birthdates are more important than
your children's birthdates? How peculiar. And why would an event that
happened 20 or 30 years before you were born be more important in
discerning a pattern to your life than an event that happened within
your lifetime? And further down you list "toothache" long before
"divorce".
> >
> >>>Now if you can follow the reasons above, you can have some more.
> >>
> >>Yup. You are a waffler. You'll create any reasons you can think of after
> >>the fact to explain a failure, but you won't cancel the test because of
> >>them because, hell, you might guess right. I'm guessing that if you had
> >>guessed right that you wouldn't have suggested cancelling the test because
> >>the data was invalid.
> >>
> >>Hmmmm?
> >>
> >>Alan
--
pz
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <9tavu5$icb$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com>,
<cu...@tsbbearings.net> wrote:
RM: Sleight of hand won't work Cujo :-)>
To obtain a "hit" 50% of the time in such an experiment where the odds
against a hit are 1 in 6, is quite satisfactory.
There is no "revision" -- that was mentioned several times.
>
>>The tests that have been started on alt.astrology were begun to find
>>out what *could* be done under simulated "formal experiment"
>>conditions.
>
>IOW, nobody had done it, including you, and you still made the claims.
RM: I keep telling you that I did not claim it *could* be done, I said
I had confidence that it could be done more than 50% of the time,
based on other (different) work.
>
>>We won't know until more tests are done if the bar has to be lowered
>>(and more event dates used ) or if certain extra conditions must be
>>met.
>
>IOW, you still need to find the fudge factor for a birth time you are
>fudging in the first place.
RM: There *is* no birth time given for these experiments. The idea is
to find it :-)>
>
>>This exercise, while being called an informal "scientific experiment"
>>is itself only experimental.
>
>You called it a 'project'. HTH!
RM: I can call it whatever I like.
>
>>It would be quite stupid to make a claim (to Randi) stating that I
>>*could* do it if I had not done it before under these conditions
>>(using a minimum number of dates).
>
>Especially after your latest failure.
RM: There wasn't any failure because both tests were invalid.
>
>>My statement in my previous post about "being a dill if I didn't get
>>my act together before taking on such a challenge" was quite valid.
>>Your comprehension however is not valid because there was no admission
>>if you look at what I said.
>
>
>Gee, you claimed you had done it before and it worked.
RM: Another of your lies. I did not claim that at all.
Ray
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <pzm-B166A4.0...@laurel.tc.umn.edu>, pz
<p...@mac.com> wrote:
RM: Not true. Tom wanted to argue incessantly about the 2 min- v- 15
min thing when either one would still make the test worthwhile.
RM: I'll say it again in case you didn't read it all.
Any rectification I do (from a known birth time - using transits only)
is always given to a client with the comment that it is only accurate
(+/- 2 mins).
None of that is relevant to the test (it was a comment which I
apparently did not explain well enough).
I thought Tom knew enough about astrology to realise that
rectifications involved moving charts (+/- 10 mins) and occasionally a
fraction more, so it should have been obvious that if I was producing
a "rectified" chart from the data IT TOO could easily involve that
leeway.
I also thought it was obvious that if there was a small error in a
recorded time then that had to be allowed for.
It is beyond comprehension that an astrologer would claim to use a
rectidfication system to find a birth time within 2 minutes of what
was written on a bit of paper - and taken from a possibly innacurate
clock.
>
>If you want to use the excuse that the recorded time on birth
>certificates is often a bit inaccurate, that doesn't help you -- because
>how would you have ever known that the resolution of your methods was
>+/-2 minutes in the first place?
RM: The resolution is obtained by simple averaging of transits. The
whole idea behind low-precision rectification is to find the best
chart which can determine the timing of future transits (and therefore
events).
All that we achieve from rectification is better timing. It will make
inner planet transits work "on time" more often.
Instead of inner planet transits working consistently 2 days early (on
average) they work more closely to the exact date (on average).
With outer planets, the timing can be thrown out by weeks or months if
a chart is not rectified.
>
>>
>> >
>> >In any case, I fail to see how bunching up the events in any
>> >way invalidates such a test. The whole point of rectification is to find
>a
>> >birth time based on significant events in a person's life. If a lot of
>> >significant things occur to someone in a short period of time and not
>much
>> >else happens for a considerable amount of time, then it seems
>astrological
>> >rectification can't work in this type of situation.
>>
>> RM: One of the systems used is the simple method of checking transits
>> to possible MC's + Ascendants. If dates are bunched up, all repetitive
>> degrees are dropped - thus making them useless because if they are
>> left in they create a strong bias towards a particular answer.
>
>This is getting ridiculous.
RM: It is not ridiculous.
Let's say a participant said I've got my parents birth dates and 13
very important dates -- all spent in jail inNovember 2000.
What good is bunched up data like that?
It's about as absurd as Tom tracking an asteroid for 13 consecutive
days and trying to figure out its orbital elements afterwards.
>
>It was not part of your original demand that dates be distributed in
>some particular way.
RM: That was one of the things that would have been processed if Tom
had held back the actual dates (as I requested).
My next step would have been to ask about the events and (possibly)
exclude anything that was too minor -- and THEN ask for the actual
dates and proceed if all else was in order.
If for example both parents were born on the same day (or a few days
apart) I would have asked one to be dropped and a replacement date
found.
All of these sorts of things would have been checked before getting
the dates, but it never happened.
>
>It makes your whole premise fall apart -- you claim to be able to
>discern a pattern from a few critical events in a persons life, but you
>insist now that you're only going to consider events if they fall within
>some predetermined distribution?
RM: Yes. That's how it works.
Nothing falls apart. Take it or leave it.
>
>And isn't it your point that the timing of these events is SUPPOSED to
>"create a strong bias towards a particular answer"?
RM: Only with dates that are NOT bunched up.
>
>> >
>> >>>The second test as invald for a few reasons - but once again I'll just
>> >>>give you two reasons to begin with:
>> >>>(1) We don't have evidence of the birth time to ascertain if I was
>> >>>right or wrong (Personally I think my answer was right).
>> >>
>> >>This is a valid point. Perhaps you should have thought of this before
>> >>suggesting the test. How do you suggest that the testee provide proof
>> >>of their birth time?
>> >
>> >The birth time was taken from an autobiography and I gave the name of the
>> >book and publisher after Ray had presented his result so that he or
>anyone
>> >else could check the book itself.
>>
>> RM: The test itself was interesting but because there was no certainty
>> about the birth time the results should not be reported without
>> *mention* of this essential information.
>
>Just how many clues do you need to be given?
RM: The report should indicate the value of the evidence used.
If documentary evidence (such as a birth certificate etc) was sighted,
it should have been mentioned.
An autobiography which mentions a birth time is NOT documentary
evidence.
>
>> >
>> >The other birth time was found on the web and was placed there by someone
>> >entirely unrelated to the autobiographer. What to believe? The guy's
>> >autobiography or something someone else puts on the internet?
>>
>> RM: It is well known that many public figures give out erroneous
>> information so that astrologers will not be able to read their
>> horoscopes accurately.
>
>Really. Do you have any evidence for this at all?
RM: Yes, it is quite commonly known to a good percentage of
astrologers.
Princes Diana was one person who did it (mentioned on the web).
>
>> It is also well known that people perpetrate
>> family myths about birth times.
>
>It's not well known to me.
RM: It is well known to astrologers.
Many people will recall a birth time alright 11 o'clock (but they
can't recall if it was11am or 11pm.
We even have cases where people have very convincing stories about how
the doctor just sat down for Christmas dinner and had to deliver the
baby - but later it has been discovered it was completely wrong -- or
it was another child.
>
>> >
>> >>If you trust them to be honest before the test starts, then I can think
>> >>of some easy ways (produce an encrypted version or message digest of
>> >>their birthday and produce the key/original after the fact). If you
>> >>don't trust them to give you the right time then I think we have a
>problem.
>> >>I guess you'd have to demand a birth certificate.
>> >
>> >It's unfortunate, but not surprising, that after the two tests, Ray is
>now
>> >doubting the honesty of those who took part in the test - the person who
>> >presented the event data to me, and myself.
>>
>> RM: I have said more than once that I believe that Tom passed on the
>> correct information. I merely pointed out that a report of the tests
>> should have mentioned the source of the information to indicate its
>> value.
>
>Incredible. Is that so you could check the source yourself?
RM: Not at all. If a source is not backed up by evidence it ought to
be mentioned.
RM: At the start of the discussions it was suggested that the number
of event dates be somewhere between 15 + 500.
I was expecting some co-operation in those early stages where any
important dates would be supplied and had that been the case I would
have encouraged all of the above dates.
Tom however (not wanting to assist in any way) chose the minimum
number of dates.
The sequence above was not meant to be strictly observed, but it was
assumed co-operation would exist whereby a good range of dates was
supplied in order to improve the chance of success.
An event that happened 20 or 30 years before a person was born
(parents birth dates) - is very important indeed.
>
>> >
>> >>>Now if you can follow the reasons above, you can have some more.
>> >>
>> >>Yup. You are a waffler. You'll create any reasons you can think of
>after
>> >>the fact to explain a failure, but you won't cancel the test because of
>> >>them because, hell, you might guess right. I'm guessing that if you had
>> >>guessed right that you wouldn't have suggested cancelling the test
>because
>> >>the data was invalid.
>> >>
>> >>Hmmmm?
>> >>
>> >>Alan
>
>--
>pz
Ray
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <pzm-C0CE1C.0...@laurel.tc.umn.edu>, pz
<p...@mac.com> wrote:
>In article <3bf88...@news.chariot.net.au>,
> "Ray Murphy" <ray...@box.net.au> wrote:
>
>> ---------
>> In article <pzm-BBF1A2.2...@news.onvoy.com>, pz
>> <p...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >In article <3bf87...@news.chariot.net.au>,
>> > "Ray Murphy" <ray...@box.net.au> wrote:
>> >
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >> RM: Well it sounds like you've been hearing from some pretty
>> >> uneducated astrologers because it's virtually impossible to test
>> >> "Astrology" because it encompasses so many things.
>> >
>> >Utter nonsense. Astrology *claims* to be based on an empirical body of
>> >observation -- so of course it should be testable.
>>
>> RM: I just finished telling you - "Astrology" (in its entirety) is NOT
>> testable.
>> It's a sort of a win-win situation for astrologers because no one can
>> ever prove that there IS NO correlation between human affairs and
>> planetary movement -- whereas astrologers (or serious researchers) may
>> be able to prove the contrary.
>
>But they have not. That makes it a losing situation for you: if you
>continue to claim the existence of *any* causal relationship in the
>absence of any evidence, it leaves you looking like a clueless fraud.
RM: I have actively encouraged other astrologers to get involved in
scientific testing and am starting myself (publicly) right now.
All of the tests that have been conducted (which I know about) were
either NOT testing "core astrology" but were tests of peripheral stuff
which astrologers don't believe anyway..
>
>You've also got it backwards. Astrologers claim correlations, and so
>far, the easy thing to do has been to show that the purported
>correlations don't exist.
RM: I think you will find that astrologers do not claim specific
correlations because they have done very little scientific research.
>
>>
>> >That it isn't is a
>> >testimony to the fallacy of that claim.
>>
>> RM: It sounds like you should be declaring what astrologers are
>> actually claiming.
>
>Astrologers claims are empty noise. You like to pretend that your claims
>are something more substantive, but so far, that's all I'm seeing from
>you.
RM: We haven't even got started yet. We only have two invalid tests.
>
>> >
>> >Your comment is like someone claiming physics can't be tested because it
>> >encompasses so many things.
>>
>> RM: Exactly!
>
>You didn't quite get the point, did you?
>
>> >[snip]
>
>--
>pz
Ray
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <pzm-F81486.0...@laurel.tc.umn.edu>, pz
<p...@mac.com> wrote:
RM: Oh that's ok then.
>
>> You see I never claimed I *could* succeed over 50% of the time -- I
>> claimed that I felt confident that I could (based upon routine
>> experience in rectification).
>
>Is English not your native language? That's the same thing. Saying that
>you feel confident that you could succeed 50% of the time is a claim
>that you can succeed 50% of the time.
RM: My grammar is not the best a lot of the time, but I know that
there IS a difference between saying that I CAN do something and I am
confident that I can do something.
>
>> The tests that have been started on alt.astrology were begun to find
>> out what *could* be done under simulated "formal experiment"
>> conditions.
>> We won't know until more tests are done if the bar has to be lowered
>> (and more event dates used ) or if certain extra conditions must be
>> met.
>
>I predict that the bar will have to be lowered very far indeed.
RM: Well that wouldn't matter in the least -- as long as the stats
hold up.
Would you not agree with that?
>
>> This exercise, while being called an informal "scientific experiment"
>> is itself only experimental.
>
>Fancy that -- an experimental experiment.
RM: Do you have a better description?
>
>You really do have a very odd grasp of English.
>
>> It would be quite stupid to make a claim (to Randi) stating that I
>> *could* do it if I had not done it before under these conditions
>> (using a minimum number of dates).
>
>Yes, that would be quite stupid. Do you think it is not stupid to make
>similar claims to people other than Randi?
RM: The project was announced as a test run to see what would happen.
[...]
>--
>pz
Ray
cu...@tsbbearings.net
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's .sig material!
>Anyone can SEE the slight difference in the timing of the chart, so
>you are quite WRONG a g a i n.
It still adds up to worthless or bad advice. Try again with a logical
argument.
>>
>>>I've never bothered finding out before.
>>>In any case your comment is quite irrelevant if rules are set in place
>>>before any tests.
>>
>>Like your last project? You moved the goalposts so often they've sent out
>>for a couple of truckloads of fresh sod.
>
>RM: This is your repetitive lie.
No, it's my opinion. Mind you, it was reached after your considerable
waffling, hedging and goalpost relocation efforts were noticed by everyone.
>>
>>>The goalposts MAY be moved after this series of tests, and that
>>>doesn't matter in the least -- as long as rules are followed.
>>
>>
>>After this latest decline of your credibility? Don't count on it. Hey,
>>Raytard, I thought I was marginalized? Obsession noted.
>
>RM: Your participation is not required. In fact it's a hindrance.
It sure is! You're still in the spin cycle, baby. `
>There are plenty of opportunities to conduct further tests.
But for the tests to be credible, *you* have to be credible. That ain't
happening anytime soon.
>>>>>There's a million bucks in it for you if you can agree on such a test
and
>>>>>pass it.
>>>>>My chart says you'll make excuses and will not do it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Don't need a chart for that, Raytard has been backpedaling ever since he
>>>>started this little personal disaster.
>>>
>>>RM: The fact remains that the data WAS posted prematurely, and this
>>>precluded the introduction of dates which were not bunched up.
>>
>>Backpedal noted. You had a chance to get the conditions defined before you
>>failed. You didn't and that failure, like all your others, was another
>>example of where you've shown you had no idea of what you were talking
>>about.
>
>RM: I did not have a chance to get the conditions defined because most
>sensible communication had come to a halt.
Strawman argument noted. Backpedal some more for us.
>The question about bunched-up dates was not even addressed.
>The was no dialogue possible whereby Tom could be asked if the dates
>were spread out, because he had submitted them prematurely.
>>
>>>The fact remains that the second test (while interesting) was
>>>nevertheless quite invalid because we still don't know the real birth
>>>time of the subject (and that is only one reason for its invalidity).
>>
>>
>>Backpedaling, waffling and goalpost moving noted. Your intellectual
>>dishonesty with *yourself* is noted as well. You claim 17 years experience
>>and you still can't get it right. Time to find a new hobby.
>
>RM: My above paragraph is true, no matter how many times you say it
>isn't.
OK, you failed. That will always be true.
>There's no need to get a new hobby because what I normally do is quite
>different to this. As I said I am *starting* with a birth time so
>there's NO chance of any large error.
You were given a birth time and place that was skewed by 3 hours and asked
to 'rectify' it. You claimed you could get it to within 15 minutes of the
correct time. You failed. 0 for 2.
>>>>
>>>>>Of course my chart is based on the history of those who claim astrology
>>is
>>>>>valid and claim a willingness to prove it, until faced with reality.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Raytard couldn't sell water in Death Valley. I'll bet Ray was hoping
that
>>>>he'd get by this 'project' (Raytard's own description) and then try to
>>snag
>>>>a few rubes. He'd never go for the JREF challenge,especially after not
>>being
>>>>able to define his own methodology and constantly moving the goalposts
>>>>befor, during *and* after he failed so badly.
>>>
>>>RM: There's no flies about you Cujo. I see you spotted that one!
>>>Yes I have to admit -- I couldn't define the methodology for the
>>>experiments.
>>
>>But you claimed you had done this before for others. Shall we let them
know
>>how cheated they were?
>
>RM: I did not.
>I have found a birth time out of the 24 hour period with a LOT of
>event dates and the recorded time was subsequently discovered, but I
>certainly haven't said I've done this before for others.
>It's your imagination running away with you.
Is it?
"RM: I'm still doing qute nicely with ordinary rectifications, so it
follows that properly conducted experiments will yield something
before too long (once we actually get started)."
>>>Clue: I mentioned about 30 times in various posts that we had to work
>>>out the rules as we went along -- and the data shouldn't be posted
>>>until then.
>>
>>OOPS! No data that defined whether the 'project' was successful was posted
>>until after you came up with a 'rectified' birth time. In a basic sense,
the
>>data that proved whether this was successful was withheld until after the
>>results were in. You had a chance to challenge any of the data before you
>>revealed your results and failed to do so.
>
>RM: I keep telling you that the data WAS challenged and that Tom did
>not address the problem.
>>
>>>[I see you spotted that] Well done Cujo :-)>
>>>
>>>The reason this happened was because I normally rectify charts with
>>>heaps of data and have not done it with 15 dates selected by other
>>>people in an experiment.
>>
>>
>>But you said it would work.
>
>RM: I did not.
>I claimed that I felt confident that I could get more than 50% of the
>tests right. So far we haven't DONE a valid test.
That's a coin flip.
>>After all this time you failed to test the exact
>>case you claimed would work *before* you decided to make a public
>>demonstration?
>
>RM: This WAS the first of a series of tests to achieve that very thing
>- and it still will be of course.
>
>>Bill Gates has a job for you selling software.
>>
>>>I daresay many other formal experiments (of astrology or anything
>>>else) would need to go through experimental stages before a final
>>>design is chosen. I would hope that vicious dogs are not biting at the
>>>heels of those experimenters.
>>
>>Only if they are stupid enough to make a public claim before actually
>>testing it. See Peat Stapleton's Astro-Guesses for more on this.
>
>RM: It was not a public claim that I *could* do it at all.
>The original post made it very clear that I was looking for
>co-operation to do some experimental work on this newsgroup
>(alt.astrology).
That's odd, with all the 'ferals' <snicker> here, seems to me it would be a
lot more useful to do it in a moderated group first and then present it. Or
was that part of the 85% you lie about things?
>>
>>>It's a interesting experience anyway -- working under adverse
>>>conditions.
>>>
>>You even had the luxury of defining the conditions.
>
>RM: I had to define the conditions to a certain extent but I made it
>quite clear that WE (collectively) had to work out how it should be
>done and after that process we should proceed.
>
So you've either jumped the gun or failed. Which is it?
cu...@tsbbearings.net
>Ray Murphy <ray...@box.net.au> wrote:
>
>> ----------
>> In article <pzm-876F20.1...@laurel.tc.umn.edu>, pz
>> <p...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >In article <3bf82...@news.chariot.net.au>,>> >> In article <pzm-1FBC24.1...@laurel.tc.umn.edu>, pz
>> >> <p...@mac.com> wrote:
>> >>
><snip!>
>
>Oh, look. The lapdogs are having it out. How precious.
>
Tune in later for another episode of "When Kooks Collide"!!!!1!!!
Michael Painter
tested it is neither physics nor science.
Michael Painter
> >You talk of being eager for a valid test.
> >There's a million bucks in it for you if you can agree on such a test and
> >pass it.
>
> RM: Well I'd be a dill if I didn't get my act together *before* taking
> on such a challenge, wouldn't I?
> I have never contemplated participating in any such circus- type
> shows because I've always been skeptical about their authenticity; in
> fact I haven't even bothered to check to see what is regarded as
> "proof" - or what sort of "p numbers" are required for anything tested
> with probability statistics, but I would imagine that there would be
> a LOT of zero's in the number required.
The money's been there for years. The requirements are clearly posted and
include mutually agreed upon testing and expected results.
As for "getting your act together". If you claim that what you are doing is
valid then you should simply be able to do that under test conditions.
That's what the vast majority of people tested have done.
*They* believed in what they did, and most still do even after failing the
test they designed.
>
> >My chart says you'll make excuses and will not do it.
> >
> >Of course my chart is based on the history of those who claim astrology
is
> >valid and claim a willingness to prove it, until faced with reality.
>
> RM: Well it sounds like you've been hearing from some pretty
> uneducated astrologers because it's virtually impossible to test
> "Astrology" because it encompasses so many things.
> It IS quite possible to test isolated bits of astrology but even if a
> person fails it does not mean "astrology" has failed (if you are
> truthful) because it is only a *person* who has failed THAT test or
> that series of tests.
>
Science encompasses a few things. All of it is tested, much of it every day.
Without passing the test it's not let in and if after 20 years some question
comes up that implies it might be wrong by one or two percent it's back to
the drawing board.
If astrology was truthful it would follow very similar guidelines.
No one has shown any results greater than that expected by random guessing
and your statement supports that concept.
Give examples of elements that can and can't be tested.
So far my chart about you making excuses is 100% accurate.
pz
<YccK7.176373$3d2.7...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Michael Painter" <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> "Ray Murphy" <ray...@box.net.au> wrote in message
> news:3bf88...@news.chariot.net.au...
> > ---------
> > In article <pzm-BBF1A2.2...@news.onvoy.com>, pz
> > <p...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >In article <3bf87...@news.chariot.net.au>,
> > > "Ray Murphy" <ray...@box.net.au> wrote:
> > >
> > >[snip]
> > >
> > >> RM: Well it sounds like you've been hearing from some pretty
> > >> uneducated astrologers because it's virtually impossible to test
> > >> "Astrology" because it encompasses so many things.
[snip]
> > >Your comment is like someone claiming physics can't be tested because it
> > >encompasses so many things.
> >
> > RM: Exactly!
> > >
> There is no part of physics that is not tested and testable. If it can't be
> tested it is neither physics nor science.
>
>
Somehow, I don't think Ray quite gets it.
--
pz
Michael Painter
>
> >>
> >> RM: I just finished telling you - "Astrology" (in its entirety) is NOT
> >> testable.
> >> It's a sort of a win-win situation for astrologers because no one can
> >> ever prove that there IS NO correlation between human affairs and
> >> planetary movement -- whereas astrologers (or serious researchers) may
> >> be able to prove the contrary.
> >
> >But they have not. That makes it a losing situation for you: if you
> >continue to claim the existence of *any* causal relationship in the
> >absence of any evidence, it leaves you looking like a clueless fraud.
>
> RM: I have actively encouraged other astrologers to get involved in
> scientific testing and am starting myself (publicly) right now.
> All of the tests that have been conducted (which I know about) were
> either NOT testing "core astrology" but were tests of peripheral stuff
> which astrologers don't believe anyway..
It it can never be proven then it is not science, it is religion. Your
statements read like that of the religious and the sound of bagpipes is
close.
You will probably dismiss http://home.planet.nl/~skepsis/astrot.html since
it does not agree with your claims.
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under
proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or
occult power or event. The prize is in the form of negotiable bonds held in
a special investment account. The JREF does not involve itself in the
testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving
the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed
with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the
applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of
the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test.
Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the
site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing
process, the "applicant" becomes a "claimant."
*All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the
applicant.*
Stop talking about how sincere you are, apply and tell us of your progress.
Ray Murphy
----------
In article
<tycK7.176388$3d2.7...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Michael Painter" <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Ray Murphy" <ray...@box.net.au> wrote in message
>news:3bf92...@news.chariot.net.au...
>>
> > >>
>> >> RM: I just finished telling you - "Astrology" (in its entirety) is NOT
>> >> testable.
>> >> It's a sort of a win-win situation for astrologers because no one can
>> >> ever prove that there IS NO correlation between human affairs and
>> >> planetary movement -- whereas astrologers (or serious researchers) may
>> >> be able to prove the contrary.
>
>> >
>> >But they have not. That makes it a losing situation for you: if you
>> >continue to claim the existence of *any* causal relationship in the
>> >absence of any evidence, it leaves you looking like a clueless fraud.
>>
>> RM: I have actively encouraged other astrologers to get involved in
>> scientific testing and am starting myself (publicly) right now.
>> All of the tests that have been conducted (which I know about) were
>> either NOT testing "core astrology" but were tests of peripheral stuff
>> which astrologers don't believe anyway..
>
>It it can never be proven then it is not science, it is religion. Your
>statements read like that of the religious and the sound of bagpipes is
>close.
RM: If anything that can be proven becomes "science" -- what does
"proven" mean for some astrological claim?
>You will probably dismiss http://home.planet.nl/~skepsis/astrot.html since
>it does not agree with your claims.
RM: I had a look, and recall seeing that web page before.
The whole thing is pathetic:
* The introductory comments
* Using just one year (1958)
* Astrologers attempting that sort of test
* Dean's Introvert/Extravert test
* Failure of astrologers to promote a better test
* The demand for 7/7 correct (even though impossible)
.....etc.
>
>http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
>At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under
>proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or
>occult power or event. The prize is in the form of negotiable bonds held in
>a special investment account. The JREF does not involve itself in the
>testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving
>the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed
>with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the
>applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of
>the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test.
>Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the
>site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing
>process, the "applicant" becomes a "claimant."
>
>*All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the
>applicant.*
RM: I had a look at the site.
I assume that JREF would consider (for the purposes of the challenge)
that astrology - or any part of it is deemed to be "paranormal,
supernatural or occult" and that my sort of experiment while fitting
none of those descriptions would nevertheless qualify.
It would be interesting to find out precisely how such a challenge
would be recorded -- whether it be with multiple video camera's -
whereby every written note or computer keystroke was recorded, or
whether it was a simple case of observing from a distance of a few
yards and waiting for a result.
I noticed also that there was some mention of JREF keeping all
evidence (which would be quite normal) but it would be interesting to
know exactly what that means.
Ideally the whole scenario should be known in advance to any
applicants so that they don't get any sudden surprises.
>
>Stop talking about how sincere you are, apply and tell us of your progress.
RM: There is no need to stop talking at all - I've just *begun* to
design a good way to test this stuff.
It would be quite ridiculous to race off and apply at this early stage
when I still have to find out what sort of documentary evidence is
most likely to be available from the average "subjects" - which JREF
would presumably want to supply.
There would of course be a need for more than one subject because the
odds would be too low with just one.
Ray
Ray Murphy
----------
In article
<YccK7.176373$3d2.7...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Michael Painter" <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
RM: What on earth are you talking about -- some sort of whacky
experiment whereby "Physics will be tested next Thusday to see if it
is valid"?
Neither or astrology or physics can be scientifically tested next
Thursday - or on any other day. We can only test *parts* of either
one.
Parts of astrology can certainly be tested, but *what* parts of
astrology (if tested) would be acknowledged as "proving a part of
astrology" if successful.
Would it not be possible for skeptics to say afterwards "An astrologer
showed a good correlation between Uranus conjunct MC on horoscopes and
job dismissals" - but would that be seen by skeptics, cynics and
genuine scientists as "proving part of astrology" or would it be
claimed that while it DID correspond, there is no PROOF that it was
REALLY astrology because it was found that Pesi Cola sales in Novia
Scotia fitted remarkably well with the same experiment?
Ray
Ray Murphy
----------
In article
<bpcK7.176381$3d2.7...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Michael Painter" <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Ray Murphy" <ray...@box.net.au> wrote in message
>news:3bf87...@news.chariot.net.au...
> > >You talk of being eager for a valid test.
>> >There's a million bucks in it for you if you can agree on such a test and
>> >pass it.
>>
>> RM: Well I'd be a dill if I didn't get my act together *before* taking
>> on such a challenge, wouldn't I?
>> I have never contemplated participating in any such circus- type
>> shows because I've always been skeptical about their authenticity; in
>> fact I haven't even bothered to check to see what is regarded as
>> "proof" - or what sort of "p numbers" are required for anything tested
>> with probability statistics, but I would imagine that there would be
>> a LOT of zero's in the number required.
>
>The money's been there for years. The requirements are clearly posted and
>include mutually agreed upon testing and expected results.
>As for "getting your act together". If you claim that what you are doing is
>valid then you should simply be able to do that under test conditions.
RM: I am not claiming that it is valid. I am claiming that I think it
can be done in view of results repeatedly obtained from routine
rectification work. (This was the whole purpose of the project -- to
find out what happens in real life situations where people supply a
limited number of "important event dates").
It may turn out that more dates are needed or that specific types of
events should be included or excluded.
If there was full co-operation with subjects whereby those who keep a
reasonable number of personal records, are willing to supply the
dates, I would imagine it would be a piece of cake in a high
percentage of cases (going from random selections of dates that are
commonly given to me for simple rectification work) - but that of
course is not what we are looking for.
It would be a weird scientific experiment indeed if there was a demand
for full co-operation and full access to subjects UNTIL an answer was
provided.
The object is to ascertain where the bottom line is, so that
repeatable (successful) results can be obtained more than 50% of the
time with a 1 in 6 chance on each occasion.
>That's what the vast majority of people tested have done.
>*They* believed in what they did, and most still do even after failing the
>test they designed.
RM: It sounds like they must have known bugger-all about statistics!
I don't know a lot about stats either, but at least my computer is
continually throwing up chi sq numbers with lots of things I keep
looking at -- and I'm continually generating random dates and times to
compare all astrological testing.
>
>
>>
>> >My chart says you'll make excuses and will not do it.
>> >
>> >Of course my chart is based on the history of those who claim astrology
>is
>> >valid and claim a willingness to prove it, until faced with reality.
>>
>> RM: Well it sounds like you've been hearing from some pretty
>> uneducated astrologers because it's virtually impossible to test
>> "Astrology" because it encompasses so many things.
>> It IS quite possible to test isolated bits of astrology but even if a
>> person fails it does not mean "astrology" has failed (if you are
>> truthful) because it is only a *person* who has failed THAT test or
>> that series of tests.
>>
>
>Science encompasses a few things. All of it is tested, much of it every day.
>Without passing the test it's not let in and if after 20 years some question
>comes up that implies it might be wrong by one or two percent it's back to
>the drawing board.
>If astrology was truthful it would follow very similar guidelines.
RM: It's not a case of truthfulness -- most astrologers (probably
around 90%) are not interested in proving anything in a formal
scientific manner.
Sure, we "sort of" test things by doing rough mental counts of hits +
misses, but it's not good enough.
One reason astrologers in general should be interested in more
experiments is that the results will begin to give tangible "odds"
about the "increased potential" we are continually talking about.
I already give "odds" for some transits to natal charts - particularly
the potential for accidents.
>No one has shown any results greater than that expected by random guessing
>and your statement supports that concept.
RM: Astrologers with any experience would back astrologers "guesses"
in preference to skeptics "guesses".
>
>Give examples of elements that can and can't be tested.
RM: I have already promoted this on alt.astrology and aamod, and have
even gone into reasonable detail with Sherilyn but there has been
extremely little interest so far.
It looks like Einstein was right a g a i n -- that all major
advancement comes from individuals. Perhaps I'm going to have to do it
all my bloody self!
[It doesn't seem right though - because it sounds very much like
having delusions of grandeur]!
>
>So far my chart about you making excuses is 100% accurate.
RM: Call my replies whatever you like, but be careful about calling
~every~ reply an excuse, because you are bound to be wrong sometimes
if you do that.
Ray
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <9tbgf4$h14$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com>,
<cu...@tsbbearings.net> wrote:
RM: Don't get hysterical Cujo. If a chart is rectified by 8 mins (by
using event dates and transits) , it can be proven conclusively that
the transits are working "on time" more often for THAT chart than for
the original chart. It's simple arithmetic. Anyone can check its
accuracy. Anyone can do it.
>
>>Anyone can SEE the slight difference in the timing of the chart, so
>>you are quite WRONG a g a i n.
>
>It still adds up to worthless or bad advice. Try again with a logical
>argument.
RM: It's actually extremely simple. Not bad advice at all.
Transits are seen to work early, late or on time. That's all there is
to it :-)>
>
>>>
>>>>I've never bothered finding out before.
>>>>In any case your comment is quite irrelevant if rules are set in place
>>>>before any tests.
>>>
>>>Like your last project? You moved the goalposts so often they've sent out
>>>for a couple of truckloads of fresh sod.
>>
>>RM: This is your repetitive lie.
>
>No, it's my opinion. Mind you, it was reached after your considerable
>waffling, hedging and goalpost relocation efforts were noticed by everyone.
RM: I repeat. The data was submitted before te rules were set in place
and agreed upon.
End of story -- invalid test.
I noticed today that this is exactly what Randi includes as a
condition.
>
>>>
>>>>The goalposts MAY be moved after this series of tests, and that
>>>>doesn't matter in the least -- as long as rules are followed.
>>>
>>>
>>>After this latest decline of your credibility? Don't count on it. Hey,
>>>Raytard, I thought I was marginalized? Obsession noted.
>>
>>RM: Your participation is not required. In fact it's a hindrance.
>
>It sure is! You're still in the spin cycle, baby. `
RM: Same spin here -- you apparently keep trying to introduce new
spins when the old ones fail to work :-)>
>
>>There are plenty of opportunities to conduct further tests.
>
>But for the tests to be credible, *you* have to be credible. That ain't
>happening anytime soon.
RM: Wrong again.
>
>>>>>>There's a million bucks in it for you if you can agree on such a test
>and
>>>>>>pass it.
>>>>>>My chart says you'll make excuses and will not do it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Don't need a chart for that, Raytard has been backpedaling ever since he
>>>>>started this little personal disaster.
>>>>
>>>>RM: The fact remains that the data WAS posted prematurely, and this
>>>>precluded the introduction of dates which were not bunched up.
>>>
>>>Backpedal noted. You had a chance to get the conditions defined before you
>>>failed. You didn't and that failure, like all your others, was another
>>>example of where you've shown you had no idea of what you were talking
>>>about.
>>
>>RM: I did not have a chance to get the conditions defined because most
>>sensible communication had come to a halt.
>
>Strawman argument noted. Backpedal some more for us.
RM: Unintelligible jargon noted :-)>
>
>>The question about bunched-up dates was not even addressed.
>>The was no dialogue possible whereby Tom could be asked if the dates
>>were spread out, because he had submitted them prematurely.
>>>
>>>>The fact remains that the second test (while interesting) was
>>>>nevertheless quite invalid because we still don't know the real birth
>>>>time of the subject (and that is only one reason for its invalidity).
>>>
>>>
>>>Backpedaling, waffling and goalpost moving noted. Your intellectual
>>>dishonesty with *yourself* is noted as well. You claim 17 years experience
>>>and you still can't get it right. Time to find a new hobby.
>>
>>RM: My above paragraph is true, no matter how many times you say it
>>isn't.
>
>OK, you failed. That will always be true.
RM: I failed nothing. There have been no valid tests yet.
Give us your opinion *after* we start -- ok?
>
>>There's no need to get a new hobby because what I normally do is quite
>>different to this. As I said I am *starting* with a birth time so
>>there's NO chance of any large error.
>
>
>You were given a birth time and place that was skewed by 3 hours and asked
>to 'rectify' it. You claimed you could get it to within 15 minutes of the
>correct time. You failed. 0 for 2.
RM: Both tests were invalid, so your rant above is meaningless.
RM: Yo've put your foot in it here.
You will observe that a supposition was clearly being made :-)>
>
>>>>Clue: I mentioned about 30 times in various posts that we had to work
>>>>out the rules as we went along -- and the data shouldn't be posted
>>>>until then.
>>>
>>>OOPS! No data that defined whether the 'project' was successful was posted
>>>until after you came up with a 'rectified' birth time. In a basic sense,
>the
>>>data that proved whether this was successful was withheld until after the
>>>results were in. You had a chance to challenge any of the data before you
>>>revealed your results and failed to do so.
>>
>>RM: I keep telling you that the data WAS challenged and that Tom did
>>not address the problem.
>>>
>>>>[I see you spotted that] Well done Cujo :-)>
>>>>
>>>>The reason this happened was because I normally rectify charts with
>>>>heaps of data and have not done it with 15 dates selected by other
>>>>people in an experiment.
>>>
>>>
>>>But you said it would work.
>>
>>RM: I did not.
>>I claimed that I felt confident that I could get more than 50% of the
>>tests right. So far we haven't DONE a valid test.
>
>
>That's a coin flip.
RM: You would LIKE it to be, but it's obviously not.
0.166 x 0.166 x 0.166 x 0.166 .......
>
>>>After all this time you failed to test the exact
>>>case you claimed would work *before* you decided to make a public
>>>demonstration?
>>
>>RM: This WAS the first of a series of tests to achieve that very thing
>>- and it still will be of course.
>>
>>>Bill Gates has a job for you selling software.
>>>
>>>>I daresay many other formal experiments (of astrology or anything
>>>>else) would need to go through experimental stages before a final
>>>>design is chosen. I would hope that vicious dogs are not biting at the
>>>>heels of those experimenters.
>>>
>>>Only if they are stupid enough to make a public claim before actually
>>>testing it. See Peat Stapleton's Astro-Guesses for more on this.
>>
>>RM: It was not a public claim that I *could* do it at all.
>>The original post made it very clear that I was looking for
>>co-operation to do some experimental work on this newsgroup
>>(alt.astrology).
>
>That's odd, with all the 'ferals' <snicker> here, seems to me it would be a
>lot more useful to do it in a moderated group first and then present it. Or
>was that part of the 85% you lie about things?
RM: It was more appropriate to start with real-life experimental
conditions rather than with astrologers for a few reasons:
(1) Some astrologers "event dates" are contrived ie: Wedding dates
selected *because* of transits.
(2) Some astrologers recall event dates that DID correspond with
transits to the Angles and tend to forget others.
(3) Some astrologers might deliberately select dates which would
*assist* the test.
>
>>>
>>>>It's a interesting experience anyway -- working under adverse
>>>>conditions.
>>>>
>>>You even had the luxury of defining the conditions.
>>
>>RM: I had to define the conditions to a certain extent but I made it
>>quite clear that WE (collectively) had to work out how it should be
>>done and after that process we should proceed.
>>
>So you've either jumped the gun or failed. Which is it?
RM: Neither.
Tom jumped the gun deliberately (apparently without realising the
implications of ignoring the request to hold back on data until
discussions were completed).
Ray
Tom Kerr
<snip>
>Tom jumped the gun deliberately (apparently without realising the
>implications of ignoring the request to hold back on data until
>discussions were completed).
I can't believe this. You *urged* me to get on with it and collect the data,
without mentioning *anything* about bunched up events. Only after I presented
the data do you mention anything about bunched up dates and then do the
rectification anyway. You could have easily said the data were not suitable
and not done the rectification.
It's only after you were given the actual birth times and found out that you
were wrong that you start whining about invalid tests, even though I had
provided precisely the data you requested. Alan Morgan was right, the way you
went about this was downright sleazy.