Free Remote viewing magazine

This forum is for the discussion of psychokinesis and extrasensory perception.

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: Free Remote viewing magazine

Postby Access Denied » Wed Feb 09, 2011 6:12 am

Daz, I think we’ve seen enough material from your website already.

At the top of the previous page (6) Rich proposed a revised experiment similar to the one you participated in at the Paracast forum based on the feedback he got from the first one he proposed and we came up with a double blind protocol that enables the results to be analyzed by 3 different people independently. One of the criticisms of Star Gate was always using the same judge, one who already knew the viewers well, and I believe these methodological issues outlines by Jessica Utts have been addressed…

[save the strict randomization requirement for target selection]

The following list of methodological issues shows the variety of concerns that must be addressed. It should be obvious that a well-designed experiment requires careful thought and planning:

  • No one who has knowledge of the specific target should have any contact with the viewer until after the response has been safely secured.
  • No one who has knowledge of the specific target or even of whether or not the session was successful should have any contact with the judge until after that task has been completed.
  • No one who has knowledge of the specific target should have access to the response until after the judging has been completed.
  • Targets and decoys used in judging should be selected using a well-tested randomization device.
  • Duplicate sets of targets photographs should be used, one during the experiment and one during the judging, so that no cues (like fingerprints) can be inserted onto the target that would help the judge recognize it.
  • The criterion for stopping an experiment should be defined in advance so that it is no called to a halt when the results just happen to be favorable. Generally, that means specifying the number of trials in advance, but some statistical procedures require or allow other stopping rules. The important point is that the rule be defined in advance in such a way that there is no ambiguity about when to stop.
  • Reasons, if any, for excluding data must be defined in advance and followed consistently, and should not be dependent on the data. For example, a rule specifying that a trial could be aborted if the viewer felt ill would be legitimate, but only if the trial was aborted before anyone involved in that decision knew the correct target.
  • Statistical analyses to be used must be planned in advance of collecting the data so that a method most favorable to the data isn't selected post hoc. If multiple methods of analysis are used the corresponding conclusions must recognize that fact.

Do you accept the challenge as proposed?

Thank you,

Tom
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]


Re: Free Remote viewing magazine

Postby chrLz » Wed Feb 09, 2011 9:54 am

There's some things notably absent from that list - namely the falsifiable aspect, and the judging criteria and analysis.

1. How will an 'average', or 'null' result be established? How could you 'falsify' the hypothesis/test?

2. What will constitute a 'hit'? As Rich has explained (and I'm happy to post examples already supplied by 'Daz'), some of the hits claimed are nothing short of ridiculous.

Any loose criteria for such judging that allows interpretations to be made (and 'wrong' words ignored/downplayed while right ones are given higher importance) is an obvious bias.

Indeed, forgve me for being cynical, but that is EXACTLY why these tests are always done this way. They never want to take on the lotto, or truly random numbers, or answering from set word lists - simply because using any of those methods can't be twisted to their favour. Why do you think there is NO, I repeat NO properly peer-reviewed and scientifically accepted verification of this? Don't you think science would LOVE to have something new like this to properly investigate, and more importantly, use and develop?

Now, perhaps it is cynical/lazy of me to 'snipe from the sidelines', but I have made several suggestions above. If I had more interest I would put more effort in and maybe help set up a test, but having seen how these folk work, I can guarantee that nothing that is properly set up, truly randomised, and statistically analysed in a way that doesn't require interpretations, will be acceptable to the purveyors of this trade. I'll be delighted to be proven wrong, but am not holding my breath.

At this point I would throw it back at the claimants - you tell us, Daz, how it can be done in a way that the results will NOT require interpretation and disputes about what is a 'hit', in other words the results will be *unequivocal*.

I reckon the ideal challenge would be first to set up an agreed 'good' test (good luck with that!), and then invite a number of professional cold-readers and/or folks who know how these things can be twisted, to also participate. Like James Randi... :lol: There should of course also be *random* responses to see how chance manages to go, and responses from skeptics and believers alike.. Then, all the responses must be carefully anonymised before analysis by independent and unbiased persons.. Once that's all done, let's see how the proverbial cards fall.

I know who I'll put my money on.


Yes, there's a fair bit to doing this properly, but that's how good science, as against pseudoscience and snake oil selling, works.

Bad data is worse than no data, imo...
"To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right." - Robert L. Park (..almost)
User avatar
chrLz
Moderator
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:47 am

Re: Free Remote viewing magazine

Postby RICH-ENGLAND » Wed Feb 09, 2011 1:37 pm

@ daz.

just to add, when i say i would expect you to at least attempt to name the object i mean in general, example: for the titanic i wouldn't expect you to say titanic but i would expect you to at the very least make an attempt to name it as in boat, ship etc, and no i wouldn't necessarily count it as a miss if all your other data was close and not vague.

thanks

rich
ATS HAS TURNED INTO A "BALLOONATIC" ASYLUM
User avatar
RICH-ENGLAND
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:06 am

Re: Free Remote viewing magazine

Postby dazdude » Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:14 pm

AD,
Do you accept the challenge as proposed?

No

Chrlz,
Indeed, forgve me for being cynical, but that is EXACTLY why these tests are always done this way. They never want to take on the lotto, or truly random numbers, or answering from set word lists - simply because using any of those methods can't be twisted to their favour. Why do you think there is NO, I repeat NO properly peer-reviewed and scientifically accepted verification of this? Don't you think science would LOVE to have something new like this to properly investigate, and more importantly, use and develop?


LOL clearly you have no idea about the already found uses and non uses of remoet viewing. especially in relation to words and numbers.


Now, perhaps it is cynical/lazy of me to 'snipe from the sidelines', but I have made several suggestions above. If I had more interest I would put more effort in and maybe help set up a test, but having seen how these folk work, I can guarantee that nothing that is properly set up, truly randomised, and statistically analysed in a way that doesn't require interpretations, will be acceptable to the purveyors of this trade. I'll be delighted to be proven wrong, but am not holding my breath.


This is way I wont take a test with you -there is NO way it can ever be a level playing field. You guys are so biased in the opposite before we start that there is no way any results would change your minds. At least the Paracast sceptics were open to the possibility.

Rich,
@ daz.

just to add, when i say i would expect you to at least attempt to name the object i mean in general, example: for the titanic i wouldn't expect you to say titanic but i would expect you to at the very least make an attempt to name it as in boat, ship etc, and no i wouldn't necessarily count it as a miss if all your other data was close and not vague.

thanks

rich


Well rich again then Remote viewing isn't what you think or have read that it is. and I'm not your man as trying the name the target goes against all the rules of my teaching CRV (look it up). The number of descriptive words and the sketches should be enough to generate an overall descriptive impression of the target.

You see on the titanic session - virtually every single piece of data was a fit for that target except the words 'dry, land' all the other pieces which probably number 1-200 words in descriptive form match the target - yet you still say vague, wont vague mean that less than 50% of my data/words would fir the target?

But alas we are going nowhere here - nothing except an 110% hit will convince you guys - even when i show you examples of a target of a tornado - and in my blind rv session I write 'tornado' as well as sketch and describe wind interacting with structures - you still don't think it was a hit for t target?
We have nowhere else to go.

Daz
User avatar
dazdude
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:23 am
Location: UK

Re: Free Remote viewing magazine

Postby RICH-ENGLAND » Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:38 pm

so you wrote "tornado" but when i ask you to attempt to name a target its totally against all these fantastical self serving "rules" you have?. hmmmm......

thanks

rich
ATS HAS TURNED INTO A "BALLOONATIC" ASYLUM
User avatar
RICH-ENGLAND
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:06 am

Re: Free Remote viewing magazine

Postby Access Denied » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:49 pm

Wow, what a waste of time. Daz weasels out by blaming those who weren't even going to be involved in analyzing the results for their skepticism…

[thread closed]

Daz, any links to your personal website in future posts will removed. If anyone sees a reason why this thread should be reopened, PM me.

[Update: thread temporarily reopened]
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Free Remote viewing magazine

Postby chrLz » Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:58 am

Quoting Daz
{AD} Do you accept the challenge as proposed?

No

...?????

Am I missing something here? The refusal was given on no basis whatsoever. At NO point did Daz even begin to engage in a reasonable discussion on what would be acceptable.

Indeed, one would have to surmise that he was simply waiting for a few comments he could take umbrage at and then run like the wind, knowing full well what the result will be when he and his associates are not running the tests.

{Chrlz} ...They never want to take on the lotto, or truly random numbers, or answering from set word lists - simply because using any of those methods can't be twisted to their favour. Why do you think there is NO, I repeat NO properly peer-reviewed and scientifically accepted verification of this? Don't you think science would LOVE to have something new like this to properly investigate, and more importantly, use and develop?

LOL clearly you have no idea about the already found uses and non uses of remoet viewing. especially in relation to words and numbers.

'LOL'?? - Daz, you're such a profeshunal... But he's actually right, I have no idea about the 'found uses' of something that does not exist. If Daz disputes that comment, why did he not simply provide links and cites to some decent scientific testing, instead of the execrable claptrap on his spam site? And to back up the fact that it is execrable, see my example below...

There seems to be an increasing tendence for Daz to make more and more claims, yet when he is asked to support anything - nothing but ad hominems and LOL's.

Hence my elaboration below - I'd love to hear others comments on MY interpretation of one of Daz's successes...

{Chrlz}If I had more interest I would put more effort in and maybe help set up a test...

Can you read, Daz? Do you see there that I was not partaking in setting up the test - I simply made some observations. Yet you seem to be terrified and have run away, without even having engaged in a discussion on how to set up a decent test.

Unbelievable... But not surprising...

Surely your powers can stand scrutiny? Well, no, it seems very clear that they CANNOT.

This is way I wont take a test with you -there is NO way it can ever be a level playing field.

Translation: I won't even discuss setting up a level playing field, because I can't play on such a thing...

You guys are so biased in the opposite before we start that there is no way any results would change your minds.

Oh do explain why you think we are biased? Seriously, I'd love to hear an answer to that. Are we being paid by 'them'? Are we afraid that there might be people with powers that might be able to... (fill in the gap please, because I can't think of any threatening downside..) Are we jealous?

And again I ask - why won't you engage in a debate about how to make the remote viewing tests beyond reproach and uncheatable? I can only think of one reason. Indeed, if the results are not as ridiculousambiguous as your Titanic effort, then you could simply point at the results. "Look you guys, unambiguously I got 8/10 of the viewings correct".. And we would all bow to your ability.

At least the Paracast sceptics were open to the possibility.

And we should be impressed why? They were qualified in what way? Did they have a background in science and testing methodology? Was there any chance THEY might be biased towards a positive result?

Why is bias in your direction ok, but bias towards proper testing not?

(yes, that's a *really* stupid question, call it rhetorical..)

I'm not your man as trying the name the target goes against all the rules of my teaching CRV (look it up). The number of descriptive words and the sketches should be enough to generate an overall descriptive impression of the target.

How perfectly convenient. We wouldn't want accuracy, oh no, just adjectives and phrases that can be twisted around by the highly impartial 'judges'. What a complete and utter farce.

You see on the titanic session - virtually every single piece of data was a fit for that target except the words 'dry, land' all the other pieces which probably number 1-200 words in descriptive form match the target - yet you still say vague, wont vague mean that less than 50% of my data/words would fir the target?


And I thank you, daz, for reinforcing that example as one of your favorites. I was sorta hoping you might do that...

So let's look at that Titanic effort, in a just a tiny bt more detail...

First, here's the Titanic image in question:
Image
Where is the citation/copyright for this image, Daz?

And here's a random landscape picture I just grabbed - seriously, I did a search for "country landscape", and shut my eyes and randomly moused to an image:
Image
Image © Dr WP Brown from http://www.docbrown.info - reposted here for educational purposes only. I am happy to replace it with one of my own (but I'm just changing providers right at this moment!)

Here's your description of the Titanic image, with my comments on how your description fits that random image, and then how it fits the Titanic one:
The target mainly feels like:
Land, structure/s and a downwards feel or movement.

Barn - superbly accurate - obviously land and structures, and there is a distinct downwards feel to the rock wall, the hills, even the leaning barn which leans down into the image. 8/10
Titanic - the word 'land' seems horribly out of place, and even structure seems a bit off - it is a vessel, not a building... And while downwards reflects what happened to get it there, it is not a particularly strong feature of the image itself. 5/10

The land:
Direct, hard, solid rough and dry.

Barn - again, yes, this is very much 'of the land', so I guess it's direct! The rocks are obviously rough and solid, and there is no sign of water in the image (except clouds). 7/10
Titanic - not sure why directness applies. I guess the structure is hard and solid, but some of it is/was smooth, and of course all that seaweed will be soft and flowing.... And 'dry'...??? The 'wetness' is an absolutely KEY part of the image!!! 4/10

Structure/s:
Feels manmade.
Constructed.
Strong imposing shape and form.
Tall, solid, hard, thick and dense.

Barn - yes, it's definitely manmade, indeed that is a feature of the image - the man-made-ness in contrast to, yet made from, the natural elements. Tall? well it does look taller than say a house would.. Certainly the two structures, barn and rock wall, are solid, hard, thick and dense. 7/10
Titanic - yes, manmade, but tallness doesn't really strike me from this image. Solid, hard? Yes, some of it. But thick and dense? Well, that soft flowing seaweed doesn't really look all that thick or dense to me. 5/10


The structure feels:
Very linear both on the horizontal and vertical levels. Lots of lines - blocky.
A part of the structure feels downwards based - drops downwards.
I’m not sure if this is motion or aesthetic and visual.

{I love that last sentence! "How to make it applicable to everything" - I'm sure that is part of the 'CRV' training credo...}
Barn - yes, lines everywhere, tyre tracks coming down from the hill, the wall, the lines of the hills, horizons, fence posts and rails.. and the barn and that wall are both certainly blocky! The wall clearly drops away downwards, as do the hills, even the barn.. 8/10
Titanic - the rails have lines, but that's about it... Blocky? No. And i don't really see a strong 'drops downwards' effect. 6/10

From the perspective of looking up at the target;
it looks linear and oblique/sloped.
Everything feels chunky, solid and dense.

Barn - yes, slopes are very obvious everywhere, and haven't we already discussed the solid/chunkiness? 7/10
Titanic - yes, it slopes, but I don't get a 'chunky/solid/dense' feeling. 6/10

This has a ‘monolithic’ and important feel to it, like a memorial, a great sense of pride and achievement, a strength and for show.

Barn - yes, to a farmer or someone with an appreciation for such beauty in a landscape, as mankind battles with the elements to make an existence from the land, that's a lovely description. 6/10
Titanic - yes, that's not too far off, but DISASTER or FAILURE of an achievement, or sadness rather than a 'great sense of pride' might have been a little better... 6/10

But alas we are going nowhere here

Indeed, I'm losing the will to live.. so I stopped there. But in my humble opinion the entire description fits my completely unTitanic-like scene MUCH better. I'd be interested to hear other views, plus I invite folks to just pluck any old image they like, and see how well Daz's description fits...

The point I'm trying to make is how utterly ridiculous such a 'test' is, and how subjective and open to interpretation the 'results' are.

It's WORTHLESS. If you tried to present such junk to a scientific review process, you would be laughed (and probably rapidly escorted) out of the door.

nothing except an 110% hit will convince you guys - even when i show you examples of a target of a tornado - and in my blind rv session I write 'tornado' as well as sketch and describe wind interacting with structures - you still don't think it was a hit for t target?

Apart from anything else, the full story of how these 'highly controlled' experiments were done is *not* properly documented. Indeed, over a long series of such tests, I would be shocked if you didn't score some decent sounding hits. Given the nature of the subjects (they all seem to be of rather interesting or dramatic events), the statistical analysis of such 'hits' would be (by design?) impossible to delineate, and of course all the bad ones will never see the light of day. So of course any hits will sound impressive. And as we don't know how rigorously controlled the tests were, and you refuse to engage in debating those issues, then it's game over.

This truly is the worst form of pseudo-science, and it reflects on the gullibility of the eager-I-want-to-believe-audience, and the self-delusion of the purveyors. This is a complete and utter fail, Daz.

We have nowhere else to go.

You don't.

We do. Indeed, I'm thinking of using that Titanic 'analysis' elsewhere.

Hope you don't mind...
Last edited by chrLz on Tue Feb 15, 2011 11:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
"To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right." - Robert L. Park (..almost)
User avatar
chrLz
Moderator
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:47 am

Re: Free Remote viewing magazine

Postby nablator » Tue Feb 15, 2011 10:58 am

Well done chrLz!

With blind belief, confirmation bias runs rampant.

Confirmati­on bias includes refusing to seek out informatio­n that may contradict your pre-existi­ng beliefs and if you come across them, treating them much more harshly than informatio­n that agree with you.

http://www.skepdic.com/confirmbias.html
Last edited by Access Denied on Fri Feb 18, 2011 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: fixed link
User avatar
nablator
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:44 am

Re: Free Remote viewing magazine

Postby chrLz » Tue Feb 15, 2011 11:23 am

nablator wrote:Well done chrLz!

With blind belief, confirmation bias runs rampant.

Confirmati­on bias includes refusing to seek out informatio­n that may contradict your pre-existi­ng beliefs and if you come across them, treating them much more harshly than informatio­n that agree with you.


http://www.skepdic.com/confirmbias.html


(Fixed the link)

Thanks Nab. Having worked in the sciences for a goodly time, it amazes me what some people think passes for 'investigation' or 'proof'. Can you imagine what chaos would exist if science worked like Daz would like it to..?

And may I too say I like your avatar - I really want to believe, but I don't have Stupid written on my forehead (to quote Judge Judy from another thread!), and I am patient...

I think the only thing more interesting than a world visited by aliens, or with proven paranormal events and abilities.. is a world that is never visited by aliens, and that has no paranormal events and abilities...

Perhaps more importantly, I am very familiar with the concept of burden of proof, what real proof actually looks, sounds and smells like, and the complete lack of any of it in this thread. :D
"To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right." - Robert L. Park (..almost)
User avatar
chrLz
Moderator
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:47 am

Re: Free Remote viewing magazine

Postby nablator » Tue Feb 15, 2011 11:33 am

chrLz wrote:Can you imagine what chaos would exist if science worked like Daz would like it to..?

I've seen people argue that null hypothesis testing is biased towards the negative. #-o

And may I too say I like your avatar - I really want to believe, but I don't have Stupid written on my forehead (to quote Judge Judy from another thread!), and I am patient...

The choice of avatar is a private joke, designed to make Buckwild cringe. He's a SETI-lover. :mrgreen:
http://weti-institute.org
User avatar
nablator
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:44 am

Re: Free Remote viewing magazine

Postby chrLz » Tue Feb 15, 2011 11:58 am

nablator wrote:
chrLz wrote:Can you imagine what chaos would exist if science worked like Daz would like it to..?

I've seen people argue that null hypothesis testing is biased towards the negative. #-o

Look, I can use a thesaurus.. one of the first synonyms of null is negative. What more proof do you skeptics need!!

We don't need no steenkin' null hypothesis! Close minded naysayers!

The choice of avatar is a private joke, designed to make Buckwild cringe. He's a SETI-lover. :mrgreen:
http://weti-institute.org

That's hilarious - I confess I didn't realise it was fair dinkum! I like the faq... thinking of joining - I'll do it after I subscribe to Apathetics Anonymous.

I was once a fan of SETI, but the more I understand about the realities, the less worthwhile I think it is. I suspect if we find out.. it will be in a way that we do not expect. Perhaps by remote viewing!!!
"To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right." - Robert L. Park (..almost)
User avatar
chrLz
Moderator
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:47 am

Re: Free Remote viewing magazine

Postby nablator » Tue Feb 15, 2011 12:44 pm

chrLz wrote:I was once a fan of SETI, but the more I understand about the realities, the less worthwhile I think it is. I suspect if we find out.. it will be in a way that we do not expect. Perhaps by remote viewing!!!

Of course! But it has already been done many times! Don't you know? The evil NASA is covering-up the truth about the Moon, Venus and Mars. You should listen to real experts, such as John Lear. :mrgreen:
User avatar
nablator
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:44 am

Re: Free Remote viewing magazine

Postby ryguy » Tue Feb 15, 2011 1:49 pm

Guys,

I'm curious as to your opinion - what degree of interpretation is acceptable in scientific analysis? This is an excellent point brought up above - after all, some measurements involved in science require interpretation of the instrumentation. For example, you can measure temperature on a thermometer with a pretty good degree of accuracy with very little wiggle room in interpretation (other than maybe part of a degree based on your observation of the measurement scale), but in the field of psychology I'm assuming the science gets much less quantifiable. How exactly do you measure "happiness" or "anger"? Doctors in the US use that silly scale of 1 to 10 in the doctor's office, or a picture of a smiley/frowny face for kids....how "scientific" is that? Largely up to interpretation, because there are no existing instruments to accurately measure pain levels. In many cases pain is subjective - a 9 to one person is a 3 to the next.

So, the question is, how do you scientifically start trying to measure a phenomenon (assuming you are willing to consider it might exist in the first place - otherwise why bother, right?) that has no instruments to measure it with? If psychic functioning exists (a big if), and if it truly is extremely weak and intermittent, then how does one scientifically develop a way to confirm such a phenomenon is real?

The problems I see are that you're dealing with how a person (the alleged psychic) interprets images inside their own head. They see a vague shape or image and try to describe it without allowing their biased mind to make a decision as to "what" it is, only what it looks like, feels like, tastes like, etc... That's both the strength and the weakness of the "Remote Viewing" approach. It will never, ever definitively name an object because, as far as I understand it, it's a general rule as PART of the process NOT to name something outright. This leaves the field vulnerable to any scientific scrutiny, as well as to fraudsters and scammers that want people to think they're psychic.

I tend to agree with the comments above, that this aspect of RV makes it really difficult as a skeptic to measure the results as accurate or inaccurate. Just like 1-900 psychic phone lines, vague descriptions can be morphed to match. On the other hand - if someone wishes to remain open to the possibility and wants to explore whether such a phenomenon might be real, then isn't the list of precautions/rules as outlined by AD pretty much the best available approach? And to some degree, there just has to be some interpretation (hopefully by multiple, unbiased judges) because I think that's pretty much all we've currently got to work with.

-Ryan
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Free Remote viewing magazine

Postby RICH-ENGLAND » Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:58 pm

Hi guys.

well i have major problems with it and all these so called psychics, ryan, while you make a fair point that this is difficult subject and that the alleged powers are hard to quantify and intermittent, you would still think that one psychic out of the millions that have made the claims would have proved it by now, as far as im aware various sceptical and scientific groups have been offering prize money for around 150 years yet not one single "psychic" has managed to claim any of these prizes, not one single "psychic" has managed to win the lotto jackpot by picking the numbers in advance in front of someone by psychic means.

now daz says hes won small amounts, well daz, i went through a lucky year once and had extremely regular small wins and even once said to a friend "im gonna win the lotto tonight" and won a decent prize with a work syndicate but have hardly won a thing since. none of it was psychic at all it was just statistical chance and i could have quite easily claimed i was psychic and got a decent looking result... now picking the jackpot by psychic means is a little less of a statistical chance and thats why "psychics" dont do it and make the excuses that they do like "we cant use our power for personal gain" while charging some poor grieving soul a fortune for a dodgy cold reading.

now next up daz was extremely happy to write the word "tornado" on one of his viewings but then tells me its absolutely forbidden to even attempt to name a target!...

then every time i ask daz if he had attempted to win any prizes from any sceptical or scientific groups he avoided the questions or twisted his answers to suit himself which made me have to keep re phrasing them to try and stop him worming his way out of it but still got no clear answers even though he knew full well what i was asking, he kept insisting that james randi is no scientist and therefore not worthy of testing daz yet hes happy to do his stuff for non scientists on the paracast that weren't offering a million dollars... i wonder why?.

now ok, even if hes not happy with randi surely you would still attempt to win the money anyway?...

and if not with randi how about the 25+ other places offering big amounts?...

daz says i was retro fitting for his titanic viewing, well it matters not, my points stand, millions upon millions of objects and places would fit that vague description, and many of them with a far better fit.

thanks

rich
ATS HAS TURNED INTO A "BALLOONATIC" ASYLUM
User avatar
RICH-ENGLAND
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:06 am

Re: Free Remote viewing magazine

Postby nablator » Tue Feb 15, 2011 3:25 pm

ryguy wrote:Guys,
And to some degree, there just has to be some interpretation (hopefully by multiple, unbiased judges) because I think that's pretty much all we've currently got to work with.

Well, if I may... I'm not an expert in parapsychology. First, the claim should be testable, with a binary outcome, not depending on interpretation, even by "unbiased" judges, like the Titanic picture test. That's the point of using Zener cards. Then there must be some way to compare the results with the probability of success by random chance or skill other than paranormal. Which value of alpha (the probability of making a type 1 error, that is, the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is in fact true) is fair, I don't know.
User avatar
nablator
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:44 am

PreviousNext

Google

Return to PSI / Mind Control

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron