| RETURN TO TELEKINESIS PAGE - TELEKINESIS -> scott | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: scott |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Jun 8, 2007 Views: 644 | RE: RE: scott there rite in front of you but you act as if there not .you cant even definetively debunk tk and your guna tell me rv isnt real and has no evidence thats a lie look it up ive presented alot more then you |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Jun 8, 2007 Views: 643 | RE: RE: scott Two psychologists performed independent reviews 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. 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. 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. |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Jun 8, 2007 Views: 642 | RE: scott http://www.skepticfiles.org/skeptic/aaas-bos.htm |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Jun 8, 2007 Views: 641 | RE: scott Despite almost 30 years of solid research with significant statistical data, the debate over ESP is still on going. Part of the problem is with "main stream" sciences belief systems. The belief system acts as a filter to what people will or will not accept. It is similar to not being able to find an object you are looking for that is right in front of your face. They will not validate ESP research simply because they do not believe in it. Scientific discoveries usually go in three stages: the first being disbelief and conflict Laws of Science; the second being admitting there is weak evidence therefore it is unimportant; and the final stage is acceptance where the main stream accepts that there is credible evidence. ESP research is now in stage two. Science has now admitted that there is weak evidence that supports the ESP phenomena. This however, is not true: ESP has been proven over and over beyond a reasonable doubt. Statistical analysis has proven that there is concrete evidence that ESP does in fact exist. Just because mainstream scientists will not validate it, does not make the evidence less credible or make the scientists correct. As in the 1400s there was a consensus with scientists that the world was flat and anyone who did not subscribe to this theory was ridiculed much like today with ESP research. As scientists slowly realized that this school of thought was false and that the world is in fact round. One day scientists will realize the validity of ESP research. |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Jun 8, 2007 Views: 638 | RE: scott http://www.viewzone.com/ESP1.html |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 8, 2007 Views: 637 | RE: scott I looked very hard at the article you copied and at the web site you just gave. Where are the stats then? Everyone talks about the stats but where are they? Reading what people SAY about them is not the same as SEEING them. Where is a description of the methodology? How many tests did they carry out? What was the precise nature of the tests? Who conducted the tests? Who funded the research? Where are the tables of the results? Who verified the tests? Who duplicated the results? Directing me to a page where they TALK about the stats is a waste of time. WE NEED TO SEE THE FULL RESULTS TO BE ABLE TO FORM OUR OWN OPINION. You have never seen the stats have you? You are just accepting what others tell you they have seen in the stats. That is pointless. Just show me where you have studied the raw data. Trouble is you obviously never have. You are simply accepting what you have been spoon fed. Stop wasting my time. All you are in effect doing is saying "It must be true because all those people, who are very very clever, say its true and they have stats to prove it, they must have because they say so, so it must be true". Are you totally incapable of checking out what they say? NO? Show us the data then, not people talking about the data! I am getting so frigging bored with this. |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Jun 8, 2007 Views: 634 | RE: RE: scott there from the testing they speak of at multiple differnt institute. and universitys. |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Jun 8, 2007 Views: 633 | RE: scott and like i said if you did your research youd already know this so obvisioly u havent |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 9, 2007 Views: 630 | RE: scott Okay, enough is enough! You can't produce any stats only sites where people talk about the results of the tests. Talk is cheap. All this talk of yours about there being stats to prove remote viewing is nothing but empty talk. You have clearly never seen the test result stats but instead are just prepared to accept they are valid because an Institute that exists only to prove the paranormal exists says that the stats are valid. It just isn't possible to get more unscientific and biased than that, and you swallow it. All you have achieved is to show how naive you are and your lack of judgment and reasoning in selecting your sources of information. It is because of people like you that these stupid myths are perpetuated, because you are prepared to believe in the ridiculous because some one told you its true. I am finished here, you can carry on for as long as you like, we all know where you are coming from: "Its true, its true, it must be true because I want it to be true and all those clever people who are trying to prove the paranormal exists and want it to be true say it is." That sums up exactly your level of intelligence. Goodbye! |
| Posted By: minigan Posted On: Jun 9, 2007 Views: 624 | RE: RE: RE: scott Keith, it took you long enough to realise you were dealing with a moron. Of course he can't supply the stats. Of course he has never seen them. Of course he is naive. What did you expect? That a kid that believes in remote viewing is going to be able to give a rational explanation and back it up with facts? Hello! You should have realised long ago he had nothing to back up his wild claims. |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Jun 9, 2007 Views: 621 | RE: scott http://www.monroeinstitute.com/voyages/hsj-fall-2002-remoteviewing-sgraf .html |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Jun 9, 2007 Views: 615 | RE: scott Analyzing Results From the Remote Viewing Practicum by Stephen Graf, PhD During the Remote Viewing Practicum conducted at The Monroe Institute during the week of September 28 to October 4, twenty-four double-blind, independently judged, remote-viewing trials were conducted "for the record" as an integral part of the educational program. The viewer-monitor-judge exercise was well suited to statistical analysis. In this exercise, twenty-three participants (plus trainer Carol Sabick) were divided into eight teams of three each. One person in each team was assigned the task of viewer, monitor, or judge for round one. In round two, roles switched within the teams, and in round three, roles switched again so that each person served once in each role. The targets were twenty-four pictured locations (different for each of the twenty-four trials) sealed within opaque envelopes. Viewers and monitors from each team were instructed to "describe the location in the envelope at the time the picture was taken." The monitor tried to follow guidelines set up for monitors to help the viewer access the target information, all the while being blind to the target. The judge received the descriptions and sketches of the target provided by the viewer and monitor. Upon completion of the remote viewing, each judge took these descriptions and sketches--along with the sealed envelope-to Atwater, who provided a sheet of four photos (a different set was used for each of the twenty-four trials). One of the photos matched the target; the other three were shams. The judges, who were not otherwise involved with the remote-viewing process, were to use the "police lineup" method to compare qualitative descriptions and sketches provided by the viewers and monitors with the four locations pictured. The judges were asked to score first-, second-, third-, and fourth-place matches. Once the decision was made, the opaque envelope was opened to reveal the target photo. Judges were instructed to tell the monitors and viewers if they were able to first-place match their descriptions to the target photo or not. The judges were not allowed to provide information about the nontarget photos. Also, groups were instructed not to discuss their targets with other groups. The aim was for a judge to match the target with a first-place rank. The viewer-monitor-judge exercise described above allowed the use of a binomial test to calculate the odds against the results obtained occurring by chance. Binomial distribution probabilities were as follows: First round - eight trials; two first-place matches (chance expectation) Second round - eight trials; five first-place matches (p=0.027 or about one chance in 36 of getting five or more first-place matches) Third round - eight trials; six first-place matches (p=0.0042 or about one chance in 240 of getting six or more first-place matches) Overall - twenty-four trials; thirteen first-place matches (p=0.0021 or about one chance in 480 of getting thirteen or more first-place matches) As Atwater mentioned at the beginning of the practicum, he can teach participants about remote viewing but he cant train them to become expert remote viewers within the week. Experiencing the feedback possible with the kinds of targets used during the week, however, allows one to gauge the benefits that practice would produce if one desires to further develop ones remote-viewing skills. [Note: These significant positive results suggest the presence of psychic functioning but may not really represent remote viewing as classically defined. The positive matches were made by independent judges who may have used their own form of psychic functioning to develop first-place matches. The binomial tes |
| Posted By: minigan Posted On: Jun 9, 2007 Views: 612 | RE: RE: scott The Monroe Institute? Are you kidding? Why quote those jokers? They are not a scientific institution, they only exist to promote a belief in "a profound state of expanded awareness". Keith has already suggested you should be more selective in your research. If you only go to sites that exist to promote remote viewing and so on of course they are going to say it exists!!!!!!!! What on earth are you thinking off? How do you expect to be taken seriously? |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Jun 9, 2007 Views: 610 | RE: RE: scott these are very serious people researching a real phenonmenon these people know what they are doing and have more credentails then you sir the us goverment concluded it was a real phenonmenon i have the declassiefied documents there are more then a hand full of universitys and institutes studys rv seriously with above chance statisical results and i shouldnt have to do all the research for you go find it for your self because its there and none of you have presented ne thing that debunks rv |
| Posted By: minigan Posted On: Jun 9, 2007 Views: 607 | RE: scott Nobody has presented anything that debunks remote viewing??? It has been said on this board many times that there is no credible evidence to support it. If you think it is real then it is up to you to supply the proof and you have failed to do that. The best you can do is to copy articles from very biased people talking about it. What does that prove apart from you being really dumb? It is not possible to prove that something that does not exist does not exist, how can that be done? This is exactly the same as the telekinesis argument, that needs to be proven to exist, not proven not to exist! As for the declassified documents in your possession... I am almost speechless, do you honestly think we are that stupid? I'm with Keith. Goodbye. |
| Pages [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next Page -> |