| RETURN TO TELEKINESIS PAGE - TELEKINESIS -> psi | Start A New Topic | CLOSED |
| Post Info | TOPIC: psi |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 3, 2007 Views: 639 | RE: psi So if we have all these PHDs and Institutes and scientists saying its a fact, how come it isn't? Please answer that as I would love to know! Is it a world wide conspiracy? Why? And your answer is.......... |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Jun 4, 2007 Views: 637 | RE: psi its a fact that remote viewing clearly contradicts chance and has been shown to do so in labtratorys we dont have a explanation for it that means its beyond our understanding.so of course its not scientific fact becuase its beyond current science but that dosent discount statisical success face it remote vieiwng is real and quantum science supports it so what is the argument |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 4, 2007 Views: 633 | RE: psi You say 1) "its a fact that remote viewing clearly contradicts chance and has been shown to do so in labtratorys" 2)"of course its not scientific fact becuase its beyond current science but that dosent discount statisical success" So what are you trying to say? That it seems to exist because of the statistics but doesn't exist because no scientist understands it? On the previous page you said "these peoples method are scientific and i know for a fact they cant tell results do to chance then by other means and theres no contradicting remote viewings reality .there scientificly showing paranormal effects exist and are repeatable ." Make up your mind! Are they scientifically repeatable paranormal effects are aren't they? Which is it? Is it a fact or isn't it? I do wish you would make up your mind. How does 'quantum science' support it? I have never heard that quantum mechanics supports remote viewing. You must be joking! Please tell me where you got this quantum nonsense from and also where you get the stats from. BTW. PLEASE do a spell check before posting as your spelling, punctuation and grammar are so dreadful it is very hard to make out what you are trying to say! |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Jun 4, 2007 Views: 627 | RE: psi there you go twisting words around we dont undersatnd how it works so we have no explanation for it, but since those people with phds do testing to see if there is a real phenomenon and get results that clearly surpass chance and its repeatable .my point is we have shown through testing that there rele somthing unexplainable going on and not just chance through statistical probablility.so cleary there is a reality to remote viewing and the fact that quantum science supports remote viewing. no **** remote viewing isnt scientific fact thats cuz we dont understand how it works but through its statistical success and credible people supporting its reality and how quantum science supports it like i said its quite silly to question its reality when those factors come into play |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Jun 4, 2007 Views: 626 | RE: psi the theory of non locality in quatum mechanics i rele recomend the movie what the bleep do we know to you kieth |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Jun 4, 2007 Views: 625 | RE: psi your not worth the time to fix such pity errors for and even with my messed up typing i still am right and your wrong .debunking psi wheels is about as easy as debunking bigfoot |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Jun 4, 2007 Views: 624 | RE: RE: psi your not worth the time to fix such pity errors for and even with my messed up typing i still am right and your wrong .debunking psi wheels is about as easy as debunking bigfoot your no genuis |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 4, 2007 Views: 616 | RE: psi Read my page on quantum mechanics or read it in my book, I know all about non-locality, it was discovered years before you were born. It has nothing whatsoever to do with remote viewing. As I said before show me where it says that. That is just you getting science mixed up with myths. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 4, 2007 Views: 613 | RE: psi Now that we are down from 3 threads all saying the same things from the same poster, cj, to just this thread, it will make things a little easier all round. So where are all these amazing stats you mention about remote viewing? |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Jun 5, 2007 Views: 611 | RE: psi you new evrything before i was born huh,thats why u said u didnt belive that us army cia dia support rv u said i got that from a comic book which clearly shows u didnt even know those documents exist.ill take russel targs analysis over yours small minded one any day he a 1 of many credible people who support remote viewing |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 5, 2007 Views: 608 | RE: psi Still waiting for where you got all those amazing stats about remote viewing! How many more times do I have to ask? Or just maybe they only exist in your fevered imagination? |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Jun 5, 2007 Views: 602 | RE: psi here http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Jun 5, 2007 Views: 600 | RE: psi lol what was the conclusion keith there no denying fool. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 5, 2007 Views: 597 | RE: RE: psi cj, As I said to you many posts ago all you have to back up your daft claim is some dodgy stats. The quantum mechanics link is pure crap and I again ask you show where that came from. The site you directed me to is not from any recognised or accredited source. It is a private individual statisticians page and not from a government or university or any institution's site. In other words it carries no more credibility than you do, so why quote it? Here is an extract from the site that is interesting: "2.3 Methodological Issues One of the challenges in designing a good experiment in any area of science is to close the loopholes that would allow explanations other than the intended one to account for the results. There are a number of places in remote viewing experiment where information could be conveyed by normal means if proper precautions are not taken. The early SRI experiments suffered from some of those problems, but the later SRI experiments and the SAIC work were done with reasonable methodological rigor, with some exceptions noted in the detailed descriptions of the SAIC experiments in Appendix 2." As it says, the stats suffer from a number of problems, even the later improved stats! And this is even from an individual that supports remote viewing! Sorry cj you have nothing. Why don't you just use your common sense and accept that there are no credible stats to back up remote viewing. If there were it would be a recognised fact. It isn't. Get it yet? |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Jun 5, 2007 Views: 594 | RE: psi ur wrong denying the fact works more then half the time and is repeatable.ur dumb there smarter then u .ur wrong |
| Pages [ 1 2 3 ] Next Page -> |