Maybe so…
But not the last post.
I’ve read your links. Neither says anything about psychics showing psychic ability in a controlled test. In fact, Zammit says quite clearly that psychics should never participate in anything involving non-believers (sceptics). And the stuff about Schwartz consists of him going on and on about what he can and will do, but ultimately when the crunch comes (will he allow independant controlled double blind testing of his mediums) he is pure hot air and no substance. He says Randi won’t respond to his emails. No, Randi won’t because Randi is not impressed by 80 emails (yes, 80 emails, that’s not verbose, that’s obsessive verging on mentally ill, if you ask me), Randi is only impressed by actual double blind testing under controlled conditions. And that is what Schwartz will not do.
Lekatt,
What criteria do you use to make the determination as to who is a “real” psychic and who is not?
Please pardon me. Somehow in the 500+ posts I waded through before I posted to this thread I must have missed it. If you would be so kind, please repost it.
thanX
What do you mean going to?
I assume your beliefs stem from the bible-correct? I’m aware of a that “false prophets” are mentioned, is this what you are talking about?
Also, do you think these Beings give the psychics anything accurate? I mean, they are still being deceptive if they are doing so, they are just giving the “psychic” something to work from.
To my knowledge he hasn’t. I asked him and I might have missed his response (entirely possible). IIRC Lekatt dismisses Miss Cleo as a fraud, even though it was her business practices and not her “abilities” that have been called into question.
lekatt said:
Imagine that. Maybe you should take a hint.
Were you looking in a mirror when you typed this? If not, you should have been.
You said it. This may have been the first time in this thread that you were correct.
Damn Leroy, you need to work on that reading comprehension a bit. First you ignored the “supply cites supporting your alegations about the Randi Challenge” part, and then you ignore the part about “from Randi’s site.” Those pages you linked to are about as usefull as linking to your own pages. You’ve made a lot of untruthfull accusations about the Randi challenge, so go to his site, and point us to what you think is unfair. Can’t find anything there?
And for the third or fourth (Or tenth) time, WHAT METHODS?? You can probably find a video of some of the tests, but WHAT METHODS??? The psychics and him talking about what the rules will be? Them performing the act? What? It’s different each time they do it. Why? Because the “powers” are different. And because they negotiate the rules each time, they don’t have some “one size fits all” set. If you want a copy of his “methods,” why don’t you first clarify what the heck that’s supposed to mean?
I’ll give you a copy of his methods right here:
- Find psychic interested in doing a test
- Find out what their power is
- Discuss with them how they perform it, how many successes out of how many tries it takes to win the challenge, and any special circumstances that should be met, either requirements for the psychic’s powers, or special measures put in place to prevent the most common methods of cheating
- Perform test agreed upon in 3
It’s pretty simple.
Yeah, I bet. Reminds me of a joke I’ve heard. Unfortunatly, it might be considered an inapropriate remark outside of the pit.
As for:
…You’re just now figuring that out?
LOL
Thanks. I needed that.
-
Yes.
-
Yes. I think sometimes accurate information is given. That is the bait. Then these people get hooked. Take a former military guy like Ed Dames, for example. He now believes so strongly in his remote viewing that he appears to set aside common sense whenever common sense and his remote viewing conflict. The dangerous thing about Ed is that he is selling videos that teach other people to dabble in the occult, as he is doing. I think his latest one is called Mind Dazzle and for some reason I think his target is children. He sent out some free copies to school libraries, IIRC.
The top link is just Randi’s letter to UA’ s president trying to inform him that he is willing to test Dr. Schwartz. Schwartz had been making excuses and using an alleged “policy” at the UA. Schwartz’s experiments were laughably bad, and were done so Schwartz could sell his feelgood books about the afterlife. Schwartz is hardly representative of researchers. Incidently the
The top paragraph in that link is full of lies and misrepresentations. Kripner did agree to be on the referee panel but later bowed out due to too many other concerns, suggesting that Schwartz get his act together. Randi refused Schwartz’s emails on this because of his playing immature games, usch as titling emails “JAMES RANDI, DO NOT READ THIS”. And flooding Randi’s mailbox with useless theorizing. Randi responded to the accusation, the lie on that webpage continues.
All the investigators are accused of being skeptic society members, which the comments whines is unfair, however, they are all excellent scientists, science is not a court of law so that comparison is invalid.
Lekatt,
I found it!
This is what you said about how to tell a real psychic from a fake:
How can I, (or some one else who’s not psychic), tell the difference? How can one be a smart consumer of psychic services without being psychic?
What kind of words does someone with genuine psychic powers use?
What kind of attitude does someone with genuine psychic powers use?
What kind of fellings do you get from does someone with genuine psychic powers use?
By seeing the same things do you mean seeing in a sense other than conventional sight?
If this thread is an example of how science works, I hope isn’t, I will never believe anything a scientist says again.
You have your theories and opinions, nothing else.
I have personal experience, lots of it, and so do millions of others.
The hate and contempt shown on this board is evidence of fear of truth, why, I don’t know. It really doesn’t matter what either of us say, only truth matters.
Love
Leroy
No offense Leroy but do you know how many logical fallacies you have in this statement?
He said, typing on the computer, missing the irony.
This thread doesn’t have anything to do with how science works
What you have are called “anecdotes”. They don’t add up.
I notice that you once again avoid the issue that was brought in the first place:
WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE THAT THE RANDI CHALLENGE IS NOT LEGITIMATE
Whining isn’t winning you any sympathy.
Interesting. Who is Ed Dames?
Why does the following quote come to mind after reading this whole train wreck of a thread?
“If it weren’t for my horse, I wouldn’t have spent that year in college.”- Lewis Black.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, blood is shooting out of my eyes.
I went back to the Zammit link again. I always get a chuckle from that one. I don’t know if he really believes what he’s written or is just sitting back waiting for the credulous to line his pockets. Anyway, his logic is brilliant, particularly this example he gives:
Later on that same page he makes a point:
Proving what? Nothing. There could be a billion websites devoted to what people believe, it still wouldn’t make it true. The existence of a web page does not alter reality. If it did, I’d put up my “I am Superman” webpage tomorrow and wait for the powers to kick in. 7 million items related to psychic phenomena could include 6 million debunking them, but it would still be useful to him as a way of inflating figures, to impress those who are impressed by such things, and it could also mean that there are just a lot of people with access to computers and a lot of time on their hands.
Uh huh, but what about all the other times those same SPECIFIC numbers were played and the person lost? No, of course the person isn’t using cold reading techniques, that’s just ridiculous. What’s happening - and, Lekatt, see if you can understand this - what’s happening is called beating the odds. It’s a matter of probability in the case of a lottery. That’s all. No mystical insight, no departed relative revealing the winning numbers. If that was the case, then why don’t we all get a turn at having our departed help us win? I could use a few million spare dollars, but none of my dead relatives appear to tell me what numbers to play. Who’s in charge of this?
Let’s try this again. Somehow a paragraph got out of place.
I went back to the Zammit link again. I always get a chuckle from that one. I don’t know if he really believes what he’s written or is just sitting back waiting for the credulous to line his pockets. Anyway, his logic is brilliant, particularly this example he gives:
Uh huh, but what about all the other times those same SPECIFIC numbers were played and the person lost? No, of course the person isn’t using cold reading techniques, that’s just ridiculous. What’s happening - and, Lekatt, see if you can understand this - what’s happening is called beating the odds. It’s a matter of probability in the case of a lottery. That’s all. No mystical insight, no departed relative revealing the winning numbers. If that was the case, then why don’t we all get a turn at having our departed help us win? I could use a few million spare dollars, but none of my dead relatives appear to tell me what numbers to play. Who’s in charge of this?
Later on that same page he makes a point:
Proving what? Nothing. There could be a billion websites devoted to what people believe, it still wouldn’t make it true. The existence of a web page does not alter reality. If it did, I’d put up my “I am Superman” webpage tomorrow and wait for the powers to kick in. 7 million items related to psychic phenomena could include 6 million debunking them, but it would still be useful to him as a way of inflating figures, to impress those who are impressed by such things, and it could also mean that there are just a lot of people with access to computers and a lot of time on their hands.
Probably need to do something about that quickly.
Hate is like battery acid, it only erodes the container that holds it.
Love
Leroy