RETURN TO TELEKINESIS PAGE - TELEKINESIS -> Why Keith's Science Is FlawedStart A New Topic | Reply
Post InfoTOPIC: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed
Posted By: Endothermal Torahs

Posted On: Feb 10, 2005
Views: 1878
Why Keith's Science Is Flawed


Keith has layed out some ground rules for proving TK, in the style what James Randi might ask for before handing over the magic $1 million.

Here's why some of those are flawed.


COVERING THE TEST SUBJECT

With reference to moving a covered psi-wheel. Yes covering it does cut down on accidental interference, but what an asumption to make to presume that this doesn't interfer with TK? It's like saying that covering a golf ball won't interfer with your ability to drive it.


DISTANCE FROM THE TEST SUBJECT

Again Keith is making the ridiculous presumption that distance won't affect TK. Apply this to golf again and think about the effect of standing just 2 metres away from the ball and trying to hit it.


It just shows how silly Keith has been but I don't blame him. Like when cars first started to appear, people thought they were amazing but now we all have them, and you don't have to know how they work to be able to drive one...

Posted By: Nick

Posted On: Feb 10, 2005
Views: 1877
RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed

Yes, and also his argument about Randi. He is a proven fraud, and only the die-hard skeptics use him as an example. Here is some information I found about him: (http://www.mariondampier-jeans.com/james_randi.htm)

$1O,OOO Psychic Challenge
In 1964 parapsychologists, bored with Randi's denunciations of psychics, challenged him to 'put his money where his mouth was.' There followed his offer of a $10,000 reward to anyone who could succeed in conditions of his choosing - it has become a most effective gimmick. Over the years he has shown some swift footwork in adjusting conditions to hold on to his money. His present offer guarantees this with several special clauses - translated, the psychic must allow Randi to:

(i)
selectively report all the results and records in order to ensure that he keeps his money;

(ii)
Seriously harm them emotionally, physically and financially, where necessary, with impunity: when asked recently if he would apologise in the event of a psychic being killed under his control, Randi snarled facetiously, 'I'd say a little more than that (sorry)';

(iii)
finally, the psychic must 'agree upon what will constitute a conclusion that he/she does not possess the claimed ability or powers. This will be a major consideration in accepting or rejecting claimants.' Does this mean that the performer must agree to being declared fraudulent even if he/she succeeds in the tests? If not, why use such ambiguous wording in a legal document?


It is thus not too surprising that all contenders have failed to obtain Randi's cash over twenty-five years, although a great deal of their own time, money and reputations have been lost.



Posted By: rob

Posted On: Feb 10, 2005
Views: 1870
RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed

so keiths science is flawed is it?

Thats a HUGE statement to make.
that means my science is also flawed along with einsteins,newtons and hawkings aswell.

about the golf thing, that is an object hitting an object, i thought tk was a control of the mind thing? does it or should it make any difference how far away you are?

Posted By: anomaly

Posted On: Feb 10, 2005
Views: 1865
RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed

rob: What those scientists of which you speak have in common is great DISCOVERIES. Keith hasn't discovered anything(you may want to read that again).

As for distance not making any difference? What's your basis for believing that? I doubt you have any experience with TK, so you wouldn't really know would you?

FYI it doesn't seem to matter. Maybe it matters when we're talking about astronomical distances, but on Earth it doesn't matter. That's my experience anyway. Feel free to laugh and "debunk" all you like, it doesn't make the tyniest difference to me.

Posted By: rob

Posted On: Feb 10, 2005
Views: 1863
RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed

touchy touchy

FYI whats that all about????????

rob: What those scientists of which you speak have in common is great DISCOVERIES. Keith hasn't discovered anything(you may want to read that again).

YOU MAY WANT TO READ AGAIN :::::

WHAT WERE THOSE DISCOVERIES MADE ON??????????

SCIENCE YES SCIENCE

SCIENCE THAT YOU ARE SAYING IS FLAWED

if you cant have a debate why bother posting a message??????????????????????????????

Posted By: Keith Mayes

Posted On: Feb 10, 2005
Views: 1862
RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed

Endothermal Torahs,
It never ceases to amaze me just how wrong you guys manage to get things time after time after time.
When I say you are stupid, I am not being rude to you, I am just stating a fact.
Allow me to explain, as you just don't get it.

COVERING THE TEST SUBJECT

With reference to moving a covered psi-wheel. Yes covering it does cut down on accidental interference, but what an asumption to make to presume that this doesn't interfer with TK? It's like saying that covering a golf ball won't interfer with your ability to drive it.

I presume nothing. Many Tkers have TOLD me that they can move a psi wheel under cover, it's all in the posts. You can also read ppsociety forum were they say they can do it.
Why didn't you check out the facts before making a fool of yourself?


DISTANCE FROM THE TEST SUBJECT

Again Keith is making the ridiculous presumption that distance won't affect TK. Apply this to golf again and think about the effect of standing just 2 metres away from the ball and trying to hit it.

You have made the same stupid mistake again. Many TKers claim that distance makes no difference. Hell, they even claim to be able to move someone else's psi wheel thousands of miles away by just looking at it through a web cam!

By the way, when are we going to see your amazing video showing floating paper clips?
Taking a long time to post isn't it?




Posted By: rob

Posted On: Feb 10, 2005
Views: 1857
RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed

"As for distance not making any difference? What's your basis for believing that? I doubt you have any experience with TK, so you wouldn't really know would you? "

what on earth are you going on about, i thought the whole idea of moving objects was to do with your mind. so i am saying what has distance to do with anthing and using the golf object thing is just silly as its an object hitting an object.
i thought tk involved the mind NOT having any physical contact? maybe im wrong?

Posted By: anomaly

Posted On: Feb 10, 2005
Views: 1856
RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed

"touchy touchy"

Yes indeed, considering the caps below..eh?

"FYI whats that all about????????"

FYI means For Your Information.


"WHAT WERE THOSE DISCOVERIES MADE ON??????????

SCIENCE YES SCIENCE

SCIENCE THAT YOU ARE SAYING IS FLAWED"

Why are you shouting? I never said science is flawed. In fact I'm a great supporter of science, believe it or not. I'm also a great supporter in good appliance and use of science.

"if you cant have a debate why bother posting a message??????????????????????????????"

Mind you, this forum is not only about what you are discussing.

Posted By: rob

Posted On: Feb 10, 2005
Views: 1850
RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed

Why are you shouting? I never said science is flawed.

ermmmm thats what this whole post is about. thats what the caption is at the top in blue.

lol im not shouting im very calm.
just being sarcastic.

on a serious note i am very interested into knowing how you feel when you do tk?

what impact is it you feel or do you feel anything?

do you feel a surge of power in the brain or something?

these are serious questions ok and not for a joke.


Posted By: Nick

Posted On: Feb 10, 2005
Views: 1847
RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed

>so keiths science is flawed is it?
>
>Thats a HUGE statement to make.
>that means my science is also flawed along with
>einsteins,newtons and hawkings aswell.

Nope, it means nothing of the kind. That is an illogical statement to make. Just because Mayes's logic is flawed doesn't mean their's is too.

>about the golf thing, that is an object hitting
>an object, i thought tk was a control of the
>mind thing? does it or should it make any
>difference how far away you are?

How do you presume to know that it shouldn't make a difference? are you an experienced TKer? If so, tell me your experiences of moving it at a distance, I want to know.

>YOU MAY WANT TO READ AGAIN :::::
>
>WHAT WERE THOSE DISCOVERIES MADE ON??????????
>
>SCIENCE YES SCIENCE
>
>SCIENCE THAT YOU ARE SAYING IS FLAWED

No, science isn't flawed....Keith Mayes's use of science is. The thing is, he isn't using science, he is trying to use illogical arguments...some of which I have already pointed out.

>what on earth are you going on about, i thought
>the whole idea of moving objects was to do with
>your mind. so i am saying what has distance to
>do with anthing and using the golf object thing
>is just silly as its an object hitting an
>object.
>i thought tk involved the mind NOT having any
>physical contact? maybe im wrong?

If my mind had physical contact with the wheel, not only would I have some serious brain damage, but I would be dead. Of course my mind is not physically touching the wheel, but who is to say that the farther away you are the more the 'force' dissipates.... I have not tried from a distance, and find no reason to.

>>>>>>To sum it up

I must agree with anamoly here. Follow this logical argument(if you dare):

>>>Keith's logic is flawed, therefore he isn't
>>>using science, because science is logical.

>>>That would mean that since he isn't using
>>>science, I'm not bashing 'science;' I'm only
>>>bashing his logic.

>>>Therefore, both Keith, and you rob, have
>>>wasted your time arguing a case that isn't
>>>being fought by us.

There is a logical argument for you, without the patented 'Keith' flaws.

Posted By: Nick

Posted On: Feb 10, 2005
Views: 1844
RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed

By the way, thank you Endothermal for starting this topic. I thought I was all alone here on this board; I thought that Keith had maybe driven every sensible person away with his illogical ranting.

Posted By: Nick

Posted On: Feb 10, 2005
Views: 1838
RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed

>on a serious note i am very interested into
>knowing how you feel when you do tk?
>
>what impact is it you feel or do you feel
>anything?
>
>do you feel a surge of power in the brain or
>something?
>
>these are serious questions ok and not for a
>joke.

If you are being genuinely serious, I'll seriously answer your question.

I have started a new topic, since this is inappropriate in this one.

Posted By: rob

Posted On: Feb 10, 2005
Views: 1834
RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed

yes i am serious about what it is you feel,think etc.

ive posted questions before and had nothing but grief.

look i dont believe in tk ok but im still interested in why people are and what it does to you and how you feel etc.

ive read prineton and basically its based on quantum mechanics which isnt in the slightest bit yet understood. so id like to know seriously how you feel and how it affects you etc, when you perform tk.

Posted By: Nick

Posted On: Feb 10, 2005
Views: 1832
RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed

I have started a new topic to discuss that. And yes, I think that what I'm doing has to do with quantum mechanics. And I believe that when they fully understand quantum mechanics, they will have a better understanding of this strange thing we call psi.

Posted By: Endothermal Torahs

Posted On: Feb 11, 2005
Views: 1818
RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed

Keith, you are really losing the arguement now. You said...

"I presume nothing. Many Tkers have TOLD me that they can move a psi wheel under cover, it's all in the posts."

So that was the basis for creating your test procedure, internet posts? Not scientifically sound of even remotely sensible.

"You can also read ppsociety forum were they say they can do it.
Why didn't you check out the facts before making a fool of yourself?"

Oh so the posts on ppsociety are facts now are they? Anybody can post anything and those are the 'facts' that you'll base your scientific tests on? Well done.

"You have made the same stupid mistake again. Many TKers claim that distance makes no difference."

Oh well then it must be true. Keith Mayes says FACT: Distance doesn't affect TK! The Evidence: Many TKer;s CLAIM that distance makes no difference!

I wonder how many people would need to claim the Earth was flat before you would believe it.

"Hell, they even claim to be able to move someone else's psi wheel thousands of miles away by just looking at it through a web cam!"

You Keith, are making a fool of yourself.

"By the way, when are we going to see your amazing video showing floating paper clips?
Taking a long time to post isn't it?"

Yes because they're going to be done and presented properly. I'm suprised you're still so interested, tell you what, why don't you pretend you've seen them and then debunk with the statements I know you've already prepared! Because that's what you're going to do anyway so lets just hear it now.


Pages [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next Page ->  

Return to Telekinesis page