About Those Beliefs You're Ashamed of Holding..

[rosecitypapa]

A 1948 study tested 58 dowsers' ability to detect water. None of them was more reliable than chance.[17] A 1979 review examined many controlled studies of dowsing for water, and found that none of them showed better than chance results. [18]

In a study in Munich 1987-1988 by Hans-Dieter Betz and other scientists, 500 dowsers were initially tested for their "skill" and the experimenters selected the best 43 among them for further tests. Water was pumped through a pipe on the ground floor of a two-story barn. Before each test the pipe was moved in a direction perpendicular to the water flow. On the upper floor each dowser was asked to determine the position of the pipe. Over two years the dowsers performed 843 such tests. Of the 43 pre-selected and extensively tested candidates at least 37 showed no dowsing ability. The results from the remaining 6 were said to be better than chance, resulting in the experimenters' conclusion that some dowsers "in particular tasks, showed an extraordinarily high rate of success, which can scarcely if at all be explained as due to chance ... a real core of dowser-phenomena can be regarded as empirically proven."[19]

Five years after the Munich study was published, Jim T. Enright, a professor of physiology and a leading skeptic who emphasised correct data analysis procedure, contended that the study's results are merely consistent with statistical fluctuations and not significant. He believed the experiments provided "the most convincing disproof imaginable that dowsers can do what they claim,"[20] stating that the data analysis was "special, unconventional and customized." Replacing it with "more ordinary analyses,"[21] he noted that the best dowser was on average 4 millimeters out of 10 meters closer to a mid-line guess, an advantage of 0.0004%. The study's authors responded, saying "on what grounds could Enright come to entirely different conclusions? Apparently his data analysis was too crude, even illegitimate."[22] The findings of the Munich study were also confirmed in a paper by Dr. S. Ertel,[23] a German psychologist who had previously intervened in the statistical controversy surrounding the "Mars effect", but Enright remained unconvinced.[24]

More recently a study[25] was undertaken in Kassel, Germany, under the direction of the Gesellschaft zur Wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften (GWUP) [Society for the Scientific Investigation of the Parasciences]. The three-day test of some 30 dowsers involved plastic pipes through which water flow could be controlled and directed. The pipes were buried 50 centimeters under a level field, the position of each marked on the surface with a colored strip. The dowsers had to tell whether water was running through each pipe. All the dowsers signed a statement agreeing this was a fair test of their abilities and that they expected a 100 percent success rate, however the results were no better than chance.

Interesting mindphuk, I searched a bit to find the source and came up with this, it contains details of what you referenced above:Failure of the Munich Experiments

In contrast, there is this:

December 7, 2004 12:00 AM
(Published in the November 1998 issue of Popular Mechanics)
Experts explain how we can save and purify the world's water supply.

Usually, the boundary between science and science fiction is as distinct as the difference between the 6 o'clock news and "The Simpsons." Wherever the line blurs, you're bound to find contentious debates. One of the longest-running of these disagreements centers on dowsing, a supposed sixth sense that enables people to find underground water using a forked branch, pendulum or pair of bent wires. There is no scientific reason why dowsing should work. Yet, it apparently works well enough and reliably enough to keep the practice alive.
The success of dowsers doesn't surprise the people who know the most about finding underground water, hydrogeologists for the United States Geological Survey (USGS). They point out that the United States is so water-rich you can get wet drilling just about anywhere, if you drill deep enough. Far harsher criticism of dowsing and dowsers comes from outside the mainstream scientific community. Two organizations, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), http://www.csicop.org/si, and the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF), http://www.randi.org, are actually working to discourage the practice, which they both dismiss as paranormal nonsense. To make their point that dowsing is a sham each has staged demonstrations in which dowsers were asked to find buried pipes. Dowsers did no better than the laws of chance predict. JREF is so confident of its position it promises to pay $1.1 million to anyone who can "prove" dowsing works.
Yet Dowsers Flourish
Like bees unaware they are too aerodynamically challenged to fly, dowsers don't let the skeptics get them down. In fact, the ranks of dowsers have been steadily growing. Forty years ago, about 50 dowsers and curiosity seekers were drawn to Danville, Vt., for a 1-day National Dowsing Convention. That get-together led to the creation of the American Society of Dowsers (ASD), www.newhampshire.com/dowsers.org, which now counts about 4200 members. Lest you dismiss dowsing's popularity as just another New Age fad, take a close look at the 16th century drawing to the left. The men wearing traditional miners' clothing are holding the same type of forked stick in use by many dowsers today.
Now comes a massive set of data that suggests there may be some validity to dowsers' claims. The encouraging words are contained in a study financed by the German government and published in the Journal Of Scientific Exploration, http://www.jse.com/betz_toc.html, which is a peer-reviewed scientific journal published at Stanford University.
The project was conducted by the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit in the hope of finding cheaper and more reliable ways of locating drinking water supplies in Third World countries.
Researchers analyzed the successes and failures of dowsers in attempting to locate water at more than 2000 sites in arid regions of Sri Lanka, Zaire, Kenya, Namibia and Yemen over a 10-year period. To do this, researchers teamed geological experts with experienced dowsers and then set up a scientific study group to evaluate the results. Drill crews guided by dowsers didn't hit water every time, but their success rate was impressive. In Sri Lanka, for example, they drilled 691 holes and had an overall success rate of 96 percent.
"In hundreds of cases the dowsers were able to predict the depth of the water source and the yield of the well to within 10 percent or 20 percent," says Hans-Dieter Betz, a physicist at the University of Munich, who headed the research group.
"We carefully considered the statistics of these correlations, and they far exceeded lucky guesses," he says. What's more, virtually all of the sites in Sri Lanka were in regions where the odds of finding water by random drilling were extremely low. As for a USGS notion that dowsers get subtle clues from the landscape and geology, Betz points out that the underground sources were often more than 100 ft. deep and so narrow that misplacing the drill only a few feet would mean digging a dry hole.
As impressive as this success rate may seem, it doesn't do much to change the minds of skeptics. Their preference is to test dowsing under more controlled conditions. Back To The Lab
Anticipating this criticism, the German researchers matched their field work with laboratory experiments in which they had dowsers attempt to locate water-filled pipes inside a building. The tests were similar to those conducted by CSICOP and JREF, and similarly discouraging. Skeptics see the poor showing as evidence of failure. Betz sees the discrepancy as an important clue. He says that subtle electromagnetic gradients may result when natural fissures and water flows create changes in the electrical properties of rock and soil. Dowsers, he theorizes, somehow sense these gradients and unconsciously respond by wagging their forked sticks, pendulums or bent wires.
Low-Energy Sensor
There is ample evidence that humans can detect small amounts of energy. All creatures with eyes can detect extremely small amounts of electromagnetic energy at visible light wavelengths. Some researchers believe the dark-adapted human eye can detect a single photon, the smallest measurable quantity of energy. Biologists also have found nonvisual electric and magnetic sensing organs in creatures from bacteria to sharks, fish and birds. Physiologists, however, have yet to find comparable structures in humans.
Betz offers no theories of how dowsers come by their skill and prefers to confine his speculation to his data. "There are two things that I am certain of after 10 years of field research," he says. "A combination of dowsing and modern techniques can be both more successful, and far less expensive, than we had thought."

 

[ginjawarrior]

Interesting mindphuk, I searched a bit to find the source and came up with this, it contains details of what you referenced above:Failure of the Munich Experiments

In contrast, there is this:

December 7, 2004 12:00 AM
(Published in the November 1998 issue of Popular Mechanics)
Experts explain how we can save and purify the world's water supply.

Usually, the boundary between science and science fiction is as distinct as the difference between the 6 o'clock news and "The Simpsons." Wherever the line blurs, you're bound to find contentious debates. One of the longest-running of these disagreements centers on dowsing, a supposed sixth sense that enables people to find underground water using a forked branch, pendulum or pair of bent wires. There is no scientific reason why dowsing should work. Yet, it apparently works well enough and reliably enough to keep the practice alive.
The success of dowsers doesn't surprise the people who know the most about finding underground water, hydrogeologists for the United States Geological Survey (USGS). They point out that the United States is so water-rich you can get wet drilling just about anywhere, if you drill deep enough. Far harsher criticism of dowsing and dowsers comes from outside the mainstream scientific community. Two organizations, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), http://www.csicop.org/si, and the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF), http://www.randi.org, are actually working to discourage the practice, which they both dismiss as paranormal nonsense. To make their point that dowsing is a sham each has staged demonstrations in which dowsers were asked to find buried pipes. Dowsers did no better than the laws of chance predict. JREF is so confident of its position it promises to pay $1.1 million to anyone who can "prove" dowsing works.
Yet Dowsers Flourish
Like bees unaware they are too aerodynamically challenged to fly, dowsers don't let the skeptics get them down. In fact, the ranks of dowsers have been steadily growing. Forty years ago, about 50 dowsers and curiosity seekers were drawn to Danville, Vt., for a 1-day National Dowsing Convention. That get-together led to the creation of the American Society of Dowsers (ASD), www.newhampshire.com/dowsers.org, which now counts about 4200 members. Lest you dismiss dowsing's popularity as just another New Age fad, take a close look at the 16th century drawing to the left. The men wearing traditional miners' clothing are holding the same type of forked stick in use by many dowsers today.
Now comes a massive set of data that suggests there may be some validity to dowsers' claims. The encouraging words are contained in a study financed by the German government and published in the Journal Of Scientific Exploration, http://www.jse.com/betz_toc.html, which is a peer-reviewed scientific journal published at Stanford University.
The project was conducted by the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit in the hope of finding cheaper and more reliable ways of locating drinking water supplies in Third World countries.
Researchers analyzed the successes and failures of dowsers in attempting to locate water at more than 2000 sites in arid regions of Sri Lanka, Zaire, Kenya, Namibia and Yemen over a 10-year period. To do this, researchers teamed geological experts with experienced dowsers and then set up a scientific study group to evaluate the results. Drill crews guided by dowsers didn't hit water every time, but their success rate was impressive. In Sri Lanka, for example, they drilled 691 holes and had an overall success rate of 96 percent.
"In hundreds of cases the dowsers were able to predict the depth of the water source and the yield of the well to within 10 percent or 20 percent," says Hans-Dieter Betz, a physicist at the University of Munich, who headed the research group.
"We carefully considered the statistics of these correlations, and they far exceeded lucky guesses," he says. What's more, virtually all of the sites in Sri Lanka were in regions where the odds of finding water by random drilling were extremely low. As for a USGS notion that dowsers get subtle clues from the landscape and geology, Betz points out that the underground sources were often more than 100 ft. deep and so narrow that misplacing the drill only a few feet would mean digging a dry hole.
As impressive as this success rate may seem, it doesn't do much to change the minds of skeptics. Their preference is to test dowsing under more controlled conditions. Back To The Lab
Anticipating this criticism, the German researchers matched their field work with laboratory experiments in which they had dowsers attempt to locate water-filled pipes inside a building. The tests were similar to those conducted by CSICOP and JREF, and similarly discouraging. Skeptics see the poor showing as evidence of failure. Betz sees the discrepancy as an important clue. He says that subtle electromagnetic gradients may result when natural fissures and water flows create changes in the electrical properties of rock and soil. Dowsers, he theorizes, somehow sense these gradients and unconsciously respond by wagging their forked sticks, pendulums or bent wires.
Low-Energy Sensor
There is ample evidence that humans can detect small amounts of energy. All creatures with eyes can detect extremely small amounts of electromagnetic energy at visible light wavelengths. Some researchers believe the dark-adapted human eye can detect a single photon, the smallest measurable quantity of energy. Biologists also have found nonvisual electric and magnetic sensing organs in creatures from bacteria to sharks, fish and birds. Physiologists, however, have yet to find comparable structures in humans.
Betz offers no theories of how dowsers come by their skill and prefers to confine his speculation to his data. "There are two things that I am certain of after 10 years of field research," he says. "A combination of dowsing and modern techniques can be both more successful, and far less expensive, than we had thought."

http://www.scientificexploration.org/

"
About the SSE

The Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) is a professional organization of scientists and scholars who study unusual and unexplained phenomena. Subjects often cross mainstream boundaries, such as consciousness, ufos, and alternative medicine, yet often have profound implications for human knowledge and technology."


so the (pseudo)"scientists" managed to get "results" from dowsers right up until the minute that they added proper controls?

interesting...

 

[rosecitypapa]

Other than a subtle ad hominem attack of me and my point of view, you did not address any of the points I made. I was simply exploring the implications of your statements. To say "I trust my own experience over anything anybody else says about it" is the same as saying "I favor my beliefs over any evidence presented to me". To say "I prefer living in questions rather than living in explanations" is, in addition to a false dichotomy, the same as saying "I prefer living in ignorance rather than knowledge". When I say ignorant I mean either unaware or purposely ignoring, and never do I mean stupid. You seem to be generally favoring the appeal of mystery and rejecting answers because they diminish the mystery. That is a true appeal to ignorance. Which is not to say you are ignorant (we are all ignorant) but that you are pointing to ignorance (ignoring evidence) as a valid way to find truth. What you perceive as self righteousness is exasperation from the contrast of you claiming to be even minded, while falling for the most basic of tricks, whether they be others tricks or tricks of your own mind. The reasons you then give for favoring ignorance is entertainment, fun and women. None of these are proper motivations for reaching the truth. I have no problem with you criticizing my standards, I in fact asked you what part of my standards you have a problem with. You should have no problem with me criticizing yours. Indeed you should criticize them yourself (as I do mine) as they have, evidently, lead you to believe in several well known hoaxes. It only takes the most elementary of research skills to uncover these tricks. I am not saying you are too dumb to understand, I am simply saying that you do not apply yourself, and have trained your mind to be careless rather than careful.

Thank you for the clarification. The statement "I trust my own experience over anything anybody else says about it" is in the context of my personal experience of firewalking. If one hasn't firewalked, then I don't give as much credibility to their theories.

The comparisons that you make with this statement;

To say "I prefer living in questions rather than living in explanations" is, in addition to a false dichotomy, the same as saying "I prefer living in ignorance rather than knowledge".

I disagree, they are not the same. The second implies a meaning distinctly different than what I said or intended.

As for not addressing some points that you brought forth, I must have missed them.

You state:

I have no problem with you criticizing my standards, I in fact asked you what part of my standards you have a problem with. You should have no problem with me criticizing yours.

After repeated requests, I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim

Here is an example of a circle that was created by men overnight. This photo is not in dispute; it was planned and made by men who are pointing to no mysterious force as an explanation.

From what I perceive, you rely on critical thinking and the use of the scientific method to seek truth. You've demonstrated in your posts the capacity to apply critical thinking to others claims yet have not brought proof to bear with a claim you yourself have made. This claim is based on a belief (100% of crop circles created by humans). That is a double standard.

I would have that belief too, if I saw evidence of what you have claimed. I followed the links you posted, listened to the podcasts and have not been able to verify what you said.

The known hoaxes are a different story. When confronted with the facts, I admit the new information and acknowledge it.

It's my assumption that you are unwilling to acknowledge that you made a false statement. That to me is my biggest beef with the scientific method as it is currently practiced and funded. Knowledge is economically and politically motivated in our culture. There is such a huge investment of time, people and resources that when something is uncovered that doesn't quite fit the model, it's excluded.

If I were an expert in a field that I devoted my entire life to, and I uncovered data in the lab that threatens the body of work I've created thus far. I'd have second thoughts about including it, especially if it meant whether I would receive further funding or not.

That's the thing man, these days, a picture just isn't enough evidence to conclude anything scientific. You need something more. I don't think these people are lying, as you said, what reason would they have to lie? They're lowering their standards of proof for unexplained/able things in favor of, essentially, best guess.

I'm curious, what do you make of this:
Nasa ufo footage compilation
Especially Astronaut Mitchell interview starting ~ at 4 min.

 

[ginjawarrior]

If I were an expert in a field that I devoted my entire life to, and I uncovered data in the lab that threatens the body of work I've created thus far. I'd have second thoughts about including it, especially if it meant whether I would receive further funding or not.
.

if you were an expert in a field and you uncovered data that turned the original paradigm on its head then you would recieve a Noble Prize simple as that

all that would be expected of you is that you were rigorous with your data collection and analysis

 

[Heisenberg]

It is not a double standard to reach an evidence based conclusion once it has been through a process of careful and rigorous doubt, in fact, that is the standard. As always, all skeptical conclusions are predicated on the understanding that new evidence can change things, and starts the doubting process over again. I have explained the logical process which leads me to the conclusion that crop circle evidence points to humans, and suggests nothing more. It is the same conclusion that the overwhelming majority of researches have came to when examining the phenomena, which is not an appeal to popularity, but indication of replicable results. If further evidence is presented which points to supernatural or alien interactions, then I would have to reconsider. For now, the only evidence you can sight is the fact that you don't understand how humans could do it. As I have pointed out, you are sighting the lack of understanding as a reason to believe something other than human ingenuity. For many reasons, a lack of understanding does not support any conclusions. This is actually a specific type of appeal to ignorance known as an argument from personal incredulity, which, observationaly speaking, seems to be a theme with you.

It completely amazes me how a human can create complex 3D sidewalk art, and often do so in a day. I can not even fathom the process of going from that fist line of chalk to the finished artwork. I am sure vids exist of the process and seeing it would dispel the mystery, but lets assume they do not. I could not ever explain or demonstrate how a human could do this, but at the same time there is nothing to suggest it's supernatural. What if sidewalk artists only created their art in the dead of night and only in secluded deserted places, and none of them claimed credit. That seems extremely eccentric and unlikely, but these are artists, and it's not that much different than a magician keeping his art mysterious. What I am left with is the sudden appearance of a complex design that I can not comprehend humans creating, especially in such a short time. Should I then assume that there is a supernatural or alien involvement? Wouldn't it be more prudent to, without evidence suggesting otherwise, believe that is is just sneaky and ingenious artists? Especially when other artists are saying they do see how it's possible and even presenting similar works, although no vids from start to finish. You might say that examples of art are all around us, and if examples of crop circles were all around it would be different. But human creativity is all around us, and examples of complex designs whether on the scale of size or detail, are all around us as well.

Virtually all circles can be proven beyond a shadow of doubt to be human made, and while a very small number may remain unproven, the assumption that they are also human made is valid in the absence of contrary evidence.

I did not mean to take your statements out of context, but to use them along with your apparent vulnerability to hoaxes, to illustrate what I see as the flaws in your thinking process which have lead you to believe these myths. Am I saying my thinking process is perfect; of course not. I am simply identifying the faults I have found in my experiences, faults that are documented by a plethora of data. It is not impossible to reach the truth using your approach, but far less likely. If you are saying that skepticism is subject to error and failure, then I have to agree, but it is indeed as fool proof as humans can currently hope to be.

Incidentally, do you believe the sentiment of this bit?

"Like bees unaware they are too aerodynamically challenged to fly"

 

[rosecitypapa]

if you were an expert in a field and you uncovered data that turned the original paradigm on its head then you would recieve a Noble Prize simple as that

all that would be expected of you is that you were rigorous with your data collection and analysis

Although I would love to believe that, I think this is a bit naive. Perhaps it is true in some cases and I would give you the benefit of the doubt but understanding human nature it is not quite that simple.

It is not a double standard to reach an evidence based conclusion once it has been through a process of careful and rigorous doubt, in fact, that is the standard. As always, all skeptical conclusions are predicated on the understanding that new evidence can change things, and starts the doubting process over again. I have explained the logical process which leads me to the conclusion that crop circle evidence points to humans, and suggests nothing more. It is the same conclusion that the overwhelming majority of researches have came to when examining the phenomena, which is not an appeal to popularity, but indication of replicable results. If further evidence is presented which points to supernatural or alien interactions, then I would have to reconsider. For now, the only evidence you can sight is the fact that you don't understand how humans could do it. As I have pointed out, you are sighting the lack of understanding as a reason to believe something other than human ingenuity. For many reasons, a lack of understanding does not support any conclusions. This is actually a specific type of appeal to ignorance known as an argument from personal incredulity, which, observationaly speaking, seems to be a theme with you.

It completely amazes me how a human can create complex 3D sidewalk art, and often do so in a day. I can not even fathom the process of going from that fist line of chalk to the finished artwork. I am sure vids exist of the process and seeing it would dispel the mystery, but lets assume they do not. I could not ever explain or demonstrate how a human could do this, but at the same time there is nothing to suggest it's supernatural. What if sidewalk artists only created their art in the dead of night and only in secluded deserted places, and none of them claimed credit. That seems extremely eccentric and unlikely, but these are artists, and it's not that much different than a magician keeping his art mysterious. What I am left with is the sudden appearance of a complex design that I can not comprehend humans creating, especially in such a short time. Should I then assume that there is a supernatural or alien involvement? Wouldn't it be more prudent to, without evidence suggesting otherwise, believe that is is just sneaky and ingenious artists? Especially when other artists are saying they do see how it's possible and even presenting similar works, although no vids from start to finish. You might say that examples of art are all around us, and if examples of crop circles were all around it would be different. But human creativity is all around us, and examples of complex designs whether on the scale of size or detail, are all around us as well.

Virtually all circles can be proven beyond a shadow of doubt to be human made, and while a very small number may remain unproven, the assumption that they are also human made is valid in the absence of contrary evidence.

I did not mean to take your statements out of context, but to use them along with your apparent vulnerability to hoaxes, to illustrate what I see as the flaws in your thinking process which have lead you to believe these myths. Am I saying my thinking process is perfect; of course not. I am simply identifying the faults I have found in my experiences, faults that are documented by a plethora of data. It is not impossible to reach the truth using your approach, but far less likely. If you are saying that skepticism is subject to error and failure, then I have to agree, but it is indeed as fool proof as humans can currently hope to be.

This is an excellent informative post. I can see where you are coming from more clearly. Using your comparison, I too would come to the same conclusions.

When first examining crop circles, I looked at the circle designs of those clowns in the 70's debunking circles and it wasn't even close to replicating the most complex circles at the time. Could there have been as you suggest a talented crop circle magician or group of magicians that prefer to stay out of the limelight? To tell you the truth, I've never considered it but it is certainly plausible. Kinda like Banksy, but even he had a signature style. I supposed it comes down to believing if we are the only intelligence life in the universe or not. I assert that it is this premise that allows one to see interconnections that are not perceivable unless one had that belief. It reminds me of those magic eye stereograms where the underlying pattern only becomes evident when one is able to gaze a particular way.





However we both know that there is no such thing as a closed system, if we were to look at crop circles in and of themselves. How would you account for the persistence of certain themes over the course of our history? ie. ufo's, ufo cover-ups, dowsing, paranormal phenomenon, etc?

How about this can of worms - let's take on 9-11, specifically the reports and visual identification of explosives, the lack of evidence of an airplane strike on the pentagon despite the official story, the reporting of wtc 7 coming down when clearly it is visible in the live coverage as well as the fact that it was never structurally compromised. Admittedly, this is a sensational site but it does bring up some evidence that doesn't fit the official story: http://www.911sharethetruth.com/

Incidentally, do you believe the sentiment of this bit?

The statement "Like bees unaware they are too aerodynamically challenged to fly", is interesting and novel, if I wasn't in present company personally assign some truth to it and also be guilty of perpetuating the soundbit as pseudo fact. However since this is not the case, I would explore if there have been any scientific studies and evidence to back up this claim, observe if they followed proper protocol, and after careful deliberation apply occam's razor to identify whether or not this claim proved to be true.


We've looked at the structure of some of my tendencies and although I don't personally like some of the comparisons that you made, can see the validity of your pov. The intention behind the structure of my beliefs, is more as a platform to accept new information as plausible and seeing what is possible from there vs dismissing new info from a skeptical mindset. This might be a false dichotomy but it is my assertion that one day I'll observe a genuine phenomenon that will open a new exciting field of research for me and others. Would I have the discipline to apply a rigorous scientific mindset to it? Probably not, but that why there are people like you with your way of thinking to keep things honest.

 

[Heisenberg]

Complex crop circle being made with explanations of techniques, and finished product.


You may want to start here in your bee aerodynamics research. It is simply a press release.


Lets address the issues you brought up one at a time. It seems we are currently on dousing, and I suggest you read about and consider the ideomotor effect. At first it seems like a typical go to skeptical explanation, but what happens when we design dousing experiments which control for ideo-motor responses?

 

[karri0n]

The bees being unable to fly thing was debunked quite some time ago - the guy who originally said it was drunk, and made some mathematical errors when jotting shit down on a napkin, including using the forumlas required for a fixed-wing aircraft rather than something with moving wings such as an insect. A helicopter can't fly using those equations, either.. He completely retracted his statement the very next day, but somehow it got caught in the annals of history and to this day is quoted by people looking to prove "science doesn't work"

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1076/is-it-aerodynamically-impossible-for-bumblebees-to-fly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumble_bee#Flight

Considering that there are thousands of sources showing otherwise available to you, the belief that bumblebees cannot fly according to the known laws of aerodynamics is one you should be ashamed of holding.

Complex crop circle being made with explanations of techniques, and finished product.

I've seen many comparisons between real crop circles and hoaxes. Man made circles are certainly impressive, but are nearly always a bit "sloppier" than their unexplained counterparts. I've even seen an attempt to reproduce some of the magnetic anomalies on some history/science channel/discovery/learning channel show. The result is that they were able to reproduce a few of the anomalies such as higher occurrence of magnetized iron and such, but nowhere near the time alloted. Had professional circle makers done the crop flattening work and these reasearchers used their "sparkler" device to go over the whole thing, maybe they couyld have done it in time.

However, this was a far cry from reproducing all of the anomalies found in crop circles which include radioactive isotopes with extremely short half-lives that could not be found in any controls. One paper detailing such:

http://execonn.com/cropcircles/isotopes.html

 

[Heisenberg]

The bees being unable to fly thing was debunked quite some time ago - the guy who originally said it was drunk, and made some mathematical errors when jotting shit down on a napkin, including using the forumlas required for a fixed-wing aircraft rather than something with moving wings such as an insect. A helicopter can't fly using those equations, either.. He completely retracted his statement the very next day, but somehow it got caught in the annals of history and to this day is quoted by people looking to prove "science doesn't work"

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1076/is-it-aerodynamically-impossible-for-bumblebees-to-fly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumble_bee#Flight

Considering that there are thousands of sources showing otherwise available to you, the belief that bumblebees cannot fly according to the known laws of aerodynamics is one you should be ashamed of holding.

To be fair, he claimed to be skeptical about the statement. Many people, including scientists outside the field, believed this was true until technology allowed us to introduce new evidence. Once the myth got out, people of course believed it was true, because science could not provide an explanation. They confused unexplained with inexplicable, and assumed since the bee wasn't aware of its plight, it defied it. They went from unexplained to explained by psychic activity without proper justification, simply because of the lack of knowledge otherwise. Whats shameful is this was sighted by a reputable magazine.


I have not ignored this question, but again am sleepy.

How would you account for the persistence of certain themes over the course of our history? ie. ufo's, ufo cover-ups, dowsing, paranormal phenomenon, etc?

The UFO magic eye pic made me chuckle. Now if that stereogram were to show up in a crop large scale, I would seriously have to reconsider.

 

[karri0n]

To be fair, he claimed to be skeptical about the statement.

Skeptical that it defied physics, not skeptical that we cannot explain it. Note my response did not say "believing that it defies aerodynamics", but "believing that it defies known aerodynamics."

The UFO magic eye pic made me chuckle. Now if that stereogram were to show up in a crop large scale, I would seriously have to reconsider.

Nearly impossible. For whatever non-human entities are making these circles, to create working stereograms would require that their brains process 3-dimensional optical information in exactly the same way as ours do. While extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, the requirement you are setting goes beyond what would be required in this case.

On the other hand, if we assume that they are being created only for our benefit, then I suppose it would be safe to assume whatever entities these are posess the level of intelligence, knowledge, and technology to understand how we process optical data and would be quite capable of making stereograms that work for our otpical systems.

 

[Luger187]

How about this can of worms - let's take on 9-11, specifically the reports and visual identification of explosives, the lack of evidence of an airplane strike on the pentagon despite the official story, the reporting of wtc 7 coming down when clearly it is visible in the live coverage as well as the fact that it was never structurally compromised. Admittedly, this is a sensational site but it does bring up some evidence that doesn't fit the official story: http://www.911sharethetruth.com/

go onto google and type pentagon plane debris. click on images

its not that hard to look it up yourself, instead of just believing it

 

[ginjawarrior]

How about this can of worms - let's take on 9-11, specifically the reports and visual identification of explosives, the lack of evidence of an airplane strike on the pentagon despite the official story, the reporting of wtc 7 coming down when clearly it is visible in the live coverage as well as the fact that it was never structurally compromised. Admittedly, this is a sensational site but it does bring up some evidence that doesn't fit the official story: http://www.911sharethetruth.com/

you really arent going to stand still enough to listen to any of the explainations given to you are you? its all about throwing as much nonsense out there in the hope that any we dont answer will vindicate everything for you....

try this site http://www.debunking911.com
unfortunately it doesnt seem to have any of the sensationalism you seem to crave

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-pentagon

 

[beardo]

spell Illuminati backwards and type it into your browser
Im afraid I believe in the NWO

 

[mindphuk]

So? Some guy buys a web domain and redirects it to the NSA?
Sort of funny when the conspiracy nuts freak out about it.

 

[beardo]

So? Some guy buys a web domain and redirects it to the NSA?
Sort of funny when the conspiracy nuts freak out about it.

Call it what you will, I call it a sign of the end times.

 

[apollo4]

i think to each is own im not but dont push,one luv my bros

 

[rosecitypapa]

Complex crop circle being made with explanations of techniques, and finished product.

Good on ya! Although it is not the image that you referenced earlier, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. That was a complex crop circle shown in process from start to end, created by humans. I'll have to reconsider, perhaps crop circles are not what they seem.

You may want to start here in your bee aerodynamics research. It is simply a press release.


Lets address the issues you brought up one at a time. It seems we are currently on dousing, and I suggest you read about and consider the ideomotor effect. At first it seems like a typical go to skeptical explanation, but what happens when we design dousing experiments which control for ideo-motor responses?

Ok, the aerodynamically challenged bees are not so challenged after all.

However the ideomotor effect is well known among dowsers. What is interesting is that if it has no merit as modern science suggests, why the persistence. My personal experience with it has been mixed. When it's on though, I can find plumbing in the middle of a concrete slab with no exterior clues as to the pipes location or orientation. It's like if there is anything on the line it doesn't want to work but when one is detached it performs in spades.

I've seen many comparisons between real crop circles and hoaxes. Man made circles are certainly impressive, but are nearly always a bit "sloppier" than their unexplained counterparts. I've even seen an attempt to reproduce some of the magnetic anomalies on some history/science channel/discovery/learning channel show. The result is that they were able to reproduce a few of the anomalies such as higher occurrence of magnetized iron and such, but nowhere near the time alloted. Had professional circle makers done the crop flattening work and these reasearchers used their "sparkler" device to go over the whole thing, maybe they couyld have done it in time.

However, this was a far cry from reproducing all of the anomalies found in crop circles which include radioactive isotopes with extremely short half-lives that could not be found in any controls. One paper detailing such:

http://execonn.com/cropcircles/isotopes.html

karri0n, that's a good article. I like how exhaustive they were in ruling out mundane explanations. Aside from the complexity of the design and layered coding, the present of the short half-life isotopes are difficult to explain easily.

The UFO magic eye pic made me chuckle. Now if that stereogram were to show up in a crop large scale, I would seriously have to reconsider.

haha, thought you'd appreciate that one.

 

[rosecitypapa]

go onto google and type pentagon plane debris. click on images

its not that hard to look it up yourself, instead of just believing it

Yeah, I've seen those images. However the same could be said about you.

There are still some unsatisfactory answered questions:
The Pentagon is one of the most secure facilities in the world. Why is there not a single image from a security camera capturing the approach and collision of a plane?
Why is there such a discrepancy with the entrance hole with no evidence of airplane tail and wing collison?
Why is there no photo of the structural damage to the south face of the wtc7?
But more significantly, why is wtc7 reported as coming down, when in fact you can see it still standing in the background of the live coverage?


This was a good link that shows some of the debris inside the building:
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

I admit, there sure looks like some plane parts.

you really arent going to stand still enough to listen to any of the explainations given to you are you? its all about throwing as much nonsense out there in the hope that any we dont answer will vindicate everything for you....

try this site http://www.debunking911.com

unfortunately it doesnt seem to have any of the sensationalism you seem to crave

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-pentagon

That statement is not accurate. I've responded to everything the skeptics have been bringing up. It's true, my human nature has a tendency to crave sensationalism. We are sensual creatures btw.

Those links are fun to explore. I like the one where the quotes of the emergency response teams where compared to the whole quote and the edited version. It's a great demonstration on how one can be subtle in ones intended implication.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Yeah, I've seen those images. There are still some unsatisfactory answered questions:
The Pentagon is one of the most secure facilities in the world. Why is there not a single image from a security camera capturing the approach and collision of a plane?

because cctv is normally pointed at the ground where theres things to watch

and the cctv doesnt film like your video camera it couldnt otherwise you need huge data storage for each camera
they take a picture every second or so and the picture isnt even of the whole second just a tiny proportion of it
that easily leaves enough time for something (even a big ol plane) thats traveling at 500miles per hour to sneak on past

Why is there such a discrepancy with the entrance hole with no evidence of airplane tail and wing collison?


This was a good link that shows some of the debris inside the building:
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

hang on why you looking for cctv footage when there is clearly aircraft wreckage in those photos?

That statement is not accurate. I've responded to everything the skeptics have been bringing up. It's true, my human nature has a tendency to crave sensationalism. We are sensual creatures btw. Those links are fun to explore. I like the one where the quotes of the emergency response teams where compared to the whole quote and the edited version. It's a great demonstration on how one can be subtle in one intended implication.

while you might answer . it seems everyone that we answer you add 5 on top of it. 911 has got nothing to do with spirituality or anything else we've been talking about yet you still chose to lump it in there...

 

[Heisenberg]

Considering the number of crop circles that have been investigated, and considering the sheer determination they put into finding something abnormal, I would think it strange if they didn't produce odd findings. This is called anomaly hunting, and is the reverse procedure of the scientific method. If those anomalies were typical of crop circles, as you guys elude to, then that would be evidence, but all we have are some strange readings from a certain piece of land, while they admit a crop circle made around the same time in the same area did not have these anomalies, and they called this the control sample? This paper was published in 91, have the same anomalies been documented since? Was the paper peer reviewed? Have botanists and other experts been consulted? Could these materials be from an exploded meteor that just happened to coincide with the this one circle? The document is well put together and cites sources, but science is absolutely littered with well intended and well put together papers that ended up having no merit.

In any case we are left with an unexplained, and again you can not justify how we go from unexplained to a non-human intelligent explanation.


Conspiracy theories do have common traits which set them apart from other theories. The most problematic is probably the conspiracy of silence. Especially with something huge like JFK or 911. You are expecting a government that couldn't cover up Clinton's blow job to remain completely silent on other subjects. Some conspiracy theories involve hundreds and thousands of people, and out of all the theories and all the people, not one person has found Jesus and come forward, not one deathbed confession has been made, not a single betrayal of trust; what an amazing feat just in itself.

The second thing that identifies a conspiracy theory is this fact; Any evidence presented against the theory, becomes evidence for the theory. For example, some people claimed the gun Oswald used was given to him just before the shooting. When a picture was found of him holding the gun taken years before, which is reasonable evidence that the gun existed in his possession prior to that day, conspiracy theorists say the picture was simply doctored, and now sight the picture as evidence that the conspiracy is true. A conspiracy theory has no problem making as many assumptions as it needs to justify itself, which of course is not a reliable way to reach the truth. So it becomes a fruitless tasks to address conspiracy thoery points one by one, as you just end up providing the conspirist with what they perceive as further evidence.

Why are conspiracy theories so compelling? Because it is our brains doing exactly what they were meant to do.

From skeptoid

The human brain evolved in such a way as to keep itself alive to the best of its ability. For the past few million years, our ancestors faced a relatively straightforward daily life. Their job was simply to stay alive. Like us, they had different personalities, different aptitudes, different attitudes. This was borne out in many ways, but the classic example that's often used is that something would rustle in the tall grass. Some of our ancestors weren't too concerned, and figured it was merely the wind; but others were more cautious, suspected a panther, and jumped for the nearest tree. Over the eons, and hundreds of thousands of generations, the nonchalant ancestors were wrong (and got eaten) just often enough that eventually, more survivors were those who tended toward caution, and even paranoia. In evolution, it pays to err on the side of caution. The brains most likely to survive were those who saw a panther in every breath of wind, an angry god in every storm cloud, a malevolent purpose in every piece of random noise. We are alive today as a race, in part, because our brains piece random events together into a pattern that adds up to a threat that may or may not be real. As a result, we are afraid of the dark even though there's rarely a monster; thunder frightens us even though lightning is scarcely a credible threat; and we perceive the menace of malevolent conspiracies in the acts of others, despite the individual unlikelihood of any one given example.

Not all detection of purposeful agency sees something evil. For example, we now know that the sun, moon, planets, stars, and constellations are simply other bodies floating through space and doing their thing, much as our Earth does. But early human cultures, who lacked better knowledge, suspected them to be purposeful entities that existed only to influence humankind on this one particular rock. This brain function that kept our species safe from threats also formed the basis for pagan religions, the great polytheistic European cultures, and astrology. Note that astrology still thrives today. Astrology is psychologically similar to conspiratorial thinking. Both represent the healthy brain's perception of purposeful agency in ordinary phenomena, but one sees danger while the other sees comfort. All of our brains naturally take us there, and it is only our learned intellect that reins us back. We're all hard wired to experience a deep-rooted excitement at the thought of opening a fortune cookie, though most of us have learned to put little stock in the fortune. And if handed today's horoscope, few can deny that their brain will go straight to their own zodiac sign to see what it says. There is no need to be embarrassed about doing either of these. It's one of the things your brain is supposed to do.