| RETURN TO TELEKINESIS PAGE - TELEKINESIS -> scott | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: scott |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Jun 6, 2007 Views: 1433 | scott i didnt see your older post i stopped goin to that thread i would be very interested in doin those experiments but i do say the number thing is not a good idea psychic impressions usually come thru visuals i already test my self through pictures.and i ve only had 2 obe s before give me your email if you wanna do this and we talk on how to set it up |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 6, 2007 Views: 1428 | RE: scott As long as you don't make it a message cj, your posts are just about unreadable. Never hear about punctuation? You know, full stops, commas, capital letters, paragraphs, that kind of thing. |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Jun 6, 2007 Views: 1426 | RE: scott im not writing a report and quite frankly thats irrelevent.i know how to spell maybe u should work on your research because your doing very poorly im sryy keith i dont post the way you want me to but quess what your wrong about rv and i agree with u on tk so whats your problem just back off dude face facts. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 6, 2007 Views: 1424 | RE: scott You think I'm wrong about remote viewing being a load of BS. All you have offered to support it is one web site from an unknown person with no backing from any organisation who herself says the test are seriously flawed. That the best you can do? Its a self demolition job! I think you are the one who very clearly needs to do some research if that is the best you can come up with. |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Jun 6, 2007 Views: 1421 | RE: RE: scott lol that was for its early testing and were quickly realized and fixed that doesnt account for even 1 percent of the testing done on it and .duuh its been repeated in more then 1 lab.did you forget to read the conclusion.and she has much more credibility then u have . |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 6, 2007 Views: 1418 | RE: RE: scott cj, Learn to research and give facts not your opinion. You sound like a small child stamping its feet and screaming over and over at its mummy, "Its true, its true". Where are the FACTS to support this? Oh yes, that site you gave where it says the stats are unreliable and the early stats were most unreliable and the later ones still are, for different reasons. They are the facts! |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Jun 7, 2007 Views: 1412 | RE: scott that doest discount rvs statiscal success and the tests are not all flawed and ne one who believes that is full of themself and in denial. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 7, 2007 Views: 1409 | RE: scott For heavens sake see the light! What facts? What proof? Where is your evidence? All you do is give opinions "Oh its been proved lots of times in lots of labs." Yeah right cj, sure it has, how about proving it for a change. Put up or shut up! |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Jun 7, 2007 Views: 1405 | RE: RE: scott rv has statisics that are way above chance thast a fact we cant explain it no its not proof positive of psychic fuctioning as of we dont understand how were doing it but we are and it happens way more then it should keith but no one can deny its statisics there are alot of way more crazier things possible then esp that are scientifcally plausible as quatuam physics shows Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud. The magnitude of psychic functioning exhibited appears to be in the range between what social scientists call a small and medium effect. That means that it is reliable enough to be replicated in properly conducted experiments, with sufficient trials to achieve the long-run statistical results needed for replicability. A number of other patterns have been found, suggestive of how to conduct more productive experiments and applied psychic functioning. For instance, it doesn't appear that a sender is needed. Precognition, in which the answer is known to no one until a future time, appears to work quite well. Recent experiments suggest that if there is a psychic sense then it works much like our other five senses, by detecting change. Given that physicists are currently grappling with an understanding of time, it may be that a psychic sense exists that scans the future for major change, much as our eyes scan the environment for visual change or our ears allow us to respond to sudden changes in sound. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 7, 2007 Views: 1400 | RE: scott "rv has statisics that are way above chance" This is only your opinion which you have repeated over and over again. Where are the facts to support it? You have woefully failed to supply any of these claimed amazing stats and obviously can't so stop wasting my time with worthless opinions. As I said before, put up or shut up. Where are these stats? |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Jun 8, 2007 Views: 1394 | RE: scott A psychologist from Cornell University reported yesterday what he said was the best evidence yet for the existence of a form of ESP, or extrasensory perception, gathered from a detailed new analysis of 39 studies that were done in the 1970s and 1980s. While a person in one room stared at a picture or video clips of anything from a Bugs Bunny cartoon to a crashing tidal wave, another person in a room isolated from the first described whatever popped into his or her mind. Far more often than could be explained by chance, the "receiver" described images very similar to what the "sender" was watching, said psychologist Daryl J. Bem of Cornell University, who was a coauthor of the study. Surveys have shown that most people believe in the likelihood of some ESP phenomena -- such as telepathy, or reading the thoughts of another person; clairvoyance, or "seeing" something in a distant place; or precognition, which is knowing something before it happens -- are real. Even among natural scientists, one survey showed 55 percent think the reality of some ESP experiences is established or likely. But among psychologists, only 34 percent think so, and research on the subject is almost never reported in mainstream psychological journals. In an unusual departure from that trend, the analysis of the experiments has been accepted for publication by the American Psychological Bulletin, which Robert Rosenthal, chairman of the psychology department at Harvard University, describes as "the most prestigious journal in psychology." Results of earlier experiments that claimed to show evidence for ESP have often been only slightly above the level of chance, but in the latest analysis "the probability that the results could have occurred by chance is less than 1 in a billion," says Bem, who presented the results in Boston at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Bem, a coauthor of the study with Charles Honorton, who was a parapsychologist at the University of Edinburgh [sic]. Honorton died last November. Rosenthal said in an interview he was "quite persuaded" by Bem's results. He had been "an agnostic" about the existence of ESP, he said, but "the statistical evidence [in Bem's analysis] is quite clear to me that there is a phenomenon there that does require explaining." In the experiments Bem studied, a sender in one room focused on a photograph, art reproduction, or video segment that had been randomly selected by a computer, while a receiver sat in another room with his eyes covered with Ping-Pong ball halves and earphones blocking any sounds with a steady "white noise." The receiver then described his or her mental impressions during the time the sender was viewing the image. The setup was designed to isolate the receiver from any ordinary sights, sounds, or sensations on the theory that ESP impressions may be so faint that they are easily swamped by the ordinary sights and sounds. Also, the images used for the experiment were chosen to be more interesting than the simple geometrical symbols often used in many earlier ESP experiments. Subjects often became bored and did not do well. Later, the receiver was shown four or more different images, including the one the sender had been looking at and asked to pick the one that most clearly matched what they experienced during the test period. With four choices, the subject had a 25 percent chance of choosing the correct one. "Strong Evidence" But in a total of 330 tests, the overall "hit" rate was 32 percent -- "the largest effect we know of," Bem said -- in any experiment on ESP. It is a rate that Donald B. Rubin, chairman of the department of statistics at Harvard, said yesterday would provide "strong evidence that the effect is real," assuming that the experimental procedures were valid. Two psychologists performed independent reviews in 1985 of a similar set of experiments, to assess any possible flaws in the methods used. They concluded at the time that the statistical effect in those tests was overwhelming, but disagreed on the possibility of flaws in the procedures. They then jointly signed a statement suggesting how the procedures could be tightened to make the results clearly valid. One of those researchers was Honorton, who went on to set up experiments specifically designed to overcome every criticism that had been leveled at the earlier experiments. Bem, who performs magic acts in his spare time, was brought in to check the procedures to guard against any possibility of fraud or inadvertent communication. Magicians are often used to check experiments in ESP as a safeguard against trickery. Creative edge noted In the most recent experiments, Bem also found evidence to support the widely held belief that creative people are more receptive to ESP. Twenty students from the Juilliard School of Music participated in the experiment, and their results were even more striking than those of other subjects. Compared to the 25 percent chance rate, the students scored 50 percent. And the musicians in that group did even better -- a 75 percent hit rate. Ray Hyman, a psychologist at the university of Oregon who wrote the critical review of these experiments in 1985, remains skeptical, Bem said. But Rosenthal, who was called in by a professional journal to referee the debate between Hyman and Honorton in 1985, said "the numbers are so clear now that it's really incumbent on the critics to try to explain these and make them go away." Rosenthal said that one of the things that makes the new study especially credible is that Bem "is one of the true agnostics in the field, who came to it without preconceived ideas" of whether the phenomenon was real. "He had the right background," Rosenthal said. Bem said the safeguards used in the recent experiments as a result of the 1985 critique "rule out, for me, all other reasonable nonpsi explanations that have been suggested." Psi is another term for ESP phenomena. Bem is conducting another set of such experiments to add to the body of evidence on the subject. The latest results are clear enough, Rosenthal said, that "I think it'll make it a little more socially acceptable to do such research." yup |
| Posted By: Psience Posted On: Jun 8, 2007 Views: 1391 | RE: scott Very good! what website did you copy/paste this from, it's interesting...I read it in a time magazine article avbotu another test somewhere, I forgot what college. But Keith, he put up alot, so how can you tell him to shut up. I see no way of disproving this, but if he doesn't put in a link, its easier to disprove. PS anybody who knows computer lingo in the US can read his typing. |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Jun 8, 2007 Views: 1387 | RE: scott thank you very much |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 8, 2007 Views: 1383 | RE: scott Anyone can copy and paste from an article. However the article is just more heresay, there is no evidence to back it up. Where are all these stats that cj is always banging on about? Same as in that article, where are the stats to back it up? All we are getting is opinions, heresay, and hyperbole, there are a distinct lack of facts. I want to see where cj gets all these stats from that he is so convinced about. I am seriously beginning to think he has never seen any but has simply accepted the heresay. That is why I say put up or shut up, I have heard all the talk show me the stats! |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Jun 8, 2007 Views: 1378 | RE: scott there rite in front of you but if you act as if there not . |
| Pages [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next Page -> |