Atheists

[Zaehet Strife]

how does he even know where to check all you gave was vague account. if these are indeed facts then you could happily point us to where to see them no?
he pointed to the 1million dollar prize because it is there for proof of paranormal events. the fact that a magician put up the prize fund would have no more relevance than say donald trump putting up the prize money. the money is there its been certified, they regularly test people who claim to have abilities and as yet no ones "powers" have carried on working when properly tested. before any applicant takes the test there has to be agreement between the testers and the tested that the procedure is fair and within in realms of what the person said they can do

saying that they arent scientists isnt vaild either if you'd done enough research on randi you would have found where he emplyed some actors to go take part in a scientific paranormal experiment and they fooled the scientists doing the test.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Alpha

oh look how easy it was to supply a link to that

[youtube]KayBys8gaJY[/youtube]

Plus Rep dude! Man, everyone in the world should be required to watch this until they understand it, and if they don't understand it, they should be put into an insane asylum. This is the fuckin shit man, i love it so much. I want to memorize every word so i can make fun of people who pretend to know things that they really don't know. I know, some may perceive that as mean...but i perceive it as constructive teaching...and humorous.

Thank you Ginja, you the man.

 

[mindphuk]

Thats partly the reason my friend doesnt want a bunch of attention, they would ask him if hes associated with Jesus or w.e and then he would announce his disgust for Christianity (because I know he would lol) and then an army of bible thumpers are chasing him with torches and pitch forks.

If your friend is interested in winning the $1 million which he can donate to his favorite cause if he doesn't want money, I will call Banachek and ask if he can use a psuedonym to protect his identity so when he wins, the crazy Xians and others won't be able to find him.

 

[overgrowem]

Has anyone ever debunked the work of Uri Geller?

 

[Heisenberg]

[video=youtube;NnDHPOWXFVI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnDHPOWXFVI[/video]

 

[Doer]

What would that matter if you were the creator of the universe? If your goal is to prove you're the Messiah, and you go walking on water to prove it and somebody says you're a demon, simply do something else Jesus did back in the day, feed a crowd of 10,000 with a single loaf of bread, water to wine, any of them.. maybe even take a modern day request?

I know, it didn't work out for him, its a real problem. Peter, I say, got the man killed by fronting that Palm Sunday stunt. And if you know the story of Stone Soup, it doesn't take a miracle to get people to share, when you start bringing out a bit of free food, Stone Soup, to start it off. I can't inagine more than 1000 or so. The region's population was slight.

That stone was rolled in place and no one was guarding it. Big men can roll it back.. The 12 best friends had left town. They didn't even see him buried. Then there were a series of "sightings" but Peter didn't see anything. It's all devotional praise. Signs and miracles.

Heal the sick? There was no medicine so no real definition of sick. There was begging and charity. How many of the "sick' went back to begging? Virgin birth? Something Buddha's mom made up 500 years before.

The water into wine was in Herrods court, I think. This alone might have lead Piliny, was it, 10 years after the execution to write of a Galilean said to "perform paradoxical feats." It's the only independent historical reference I know of.

 

[mindphuk]

Has anyone ever debunked the work of Uri Geller?

Uri has moved away from the claim of being truly psychic and now just calls himself a performer like the vast majority of magicians. Ben Harris has written a book called Gellerism Revealed that exposes many of the methods used by Uri. Many magicians have expanded many of his methods to create even better performances.

[video=youtube;ZlsAEncM6cQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlsAEncM6cQ[/video]

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

If your friend is interested in winning the $1 million which he can donate to his favorite cause if he doesn't want money, I will call Banachek and ask if he can use a psuedonym to protect his identity so when he wins, the crazy Xians and others won't be able to find him.

Im with you man, I want him to take that million dollar challenge more than anybody lol but he wont and I dont know all the reasons why. Im pretty sure one of the reasons is that he doesnt want to teach people, because I annoyed him with all the questions I asked him, I dont think any of them were stupid questions he just got frustrated from answering them.

 

[overgrowem]

Uri has moved away from the claim of being truly psychic and now just calls himself a performer like the vast majority of magicians. Ben Harris has written a book called Gellerism Revealed that exposes many of the methods used by Uri. Many magicians have expanded many of his methods to create even better performances.

[video=youtube;ZlsAEncM6cQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlsAEncM6cQ[/video]

Maybe I am thinking of the wrong person.Before Uri was a spoon bender wasn't he a psyhcic who helped the police solve crimes.I remmember films of him (I think it was him)going to a crime scene,going to the location of the body and assuming the position of the body.Did this on film several times.also did the easy stuff like decribing suspects and their clothes,or revealing motives,etc,etc..Had some high profile succeses.Was this him?If not anyone know who that guy was.Has his ability in this area been investigated.

 

[overgrowem]

Do you even know what a claim is?

Verb:	State or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
Noun:	An assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt.

You can't say you made a statement of fact and then deny it was a claim to relieve yourself of the burden of providing evidence. Asking others to go verify something that YOU brought up is rude and definitely against normal rules of civilized debate. Asking someone to do a little research or reading is not wrong but it should be up to you to guide us to the place where we can do such reading.

Remote viewing has been thoroughly discredited. The DoD and CIA stopped their research into this area because it wasn't demonstrating any actual benefit. I would give you a link to prove what I said but I'm sure you can google it yourself, right?[/QUOTE...Yes I no doubt did not chose my words as carefully as I should have.My haste was due to the fact that the poster was denying the existance of Project Stargate,yet he had never heard of it......NO ACTUAL BENIFIT.....DISCREDITED...Neither of these mean nonexistant and I have seen no statements that it is NONEXISTANT.The original Question was name a supernatural phenomina.Well if remote viewing is not nonexistant....point made....On a lighter side many,many women share a power with the super hero, Shadow...."the ability to cloud mens minds

 

[BA142]

Do you even know what a claim is?

Verb:	State or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
Noun:	An assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt.

You can't say you made a statement of fact and then deny it was a claim to relieve yourself of the burden of providing evidence. Asking others to go verify something that YOU brought up is rude and definitely against normal rules of civilized debate. Asking someone to do a little research or reading is not wrong but it should be up to you to guide us to the place where we can do such reading.

Like how Christian's claim there's a God without a shred of real evidence? Do you really not get how the burden of proof is on the people making the claim?

That would be like me saying "My mattress can cure any back ailment if you sleep on it for a week."

You ask, "How is that? Could you explain?"

I reply, "How rude! Just because I make an outrageous claim doesn't mean I have to prove it, that's your job!"

 

[overgrowem]

Like how Christian's claim there's a God without a shred of real evidence? Do you really not get how the burden of proof is on the people making the claim?

That would be like me saying "My mattress can cure any back ailment if you sleep on it for a week."

You ask, "How is that? Could you explain?"

I reply, "How rude! Just because I make an outrageous claim doesn't mean I have to prove it, that's your job!"

"Without a shred of evidence"I maintain as do the handlers that the hits in Project Stargate are evidence that remote viewing has validity.These are documented occurances.Isn't it up to U to debunk these events.

 

[tyler.durden]

"Without a shred of evidence"I maintain as do the handlers that the hits in Project Stargate are evidence that remote viewing has validity.These are documented occurances.Isn't it up to U to debunk these events.

Well, all the info. we have so far is from Heis, and it doesn't seem like the gov't thought Stargate had validity:

The foregoing observations provide a compelling argument against continuation of the program within the intelligence community. Even though a statistically significant effect has been observed in the laboratory, it remains unclear whether the existence of a paranormal phenomenon, remote viewing, has been demonstrated.

It's unclear if remote viewing was even demonstrated. This doesn't seems very valid...

 

[mindphuk]

...Yes I no doubt did not chose my words as carefully as I should have.My haste was due to the fact that the poster was denying the existance of Project Stargate,yet he had never heard of it......NO ACTUAL BENIFIT.....DISCREDITED...Neither of these mean nonexistant and I have seen no statements that it is NONEXISTANT.The original Question was name a supernatural phenomina.Well if remote viewing is not nonexistant....point made....On a lighter side many,many women share a power with the super hero, Shadow...."the ability to cloud mens minds

That's not what happened. No one denied existence of project Stargate. You made a claim in the form of a question, "How about the Govs. remote seers who have located downed aircraft on the other side of the world,or accuratly drawn military facilities in Siberia?"

When you were asked to provide a link to this event occurring because some of us have not heard about it, you told them to google it.
Heis came back and asked for more details considering that there have been many downed aircraft and he couldn't find any information as to the one you were referring. Your reply was that his inability to find the information was 'blinding' because it was widely reported yet you still never provided any details as to where and when this occurred.
Now you want to create a revisionist version of events where instead Heis claimed that the Project Stargate did not exist. Would you care to point out the post where he made this claim?

BTW, I don't know why you have such a hard time with the quotes, just click the "Reply With Quote" button and start typing. You keep deleting part of the /quote tag and making your posts hard to read.

 

[overgrowem]

Well, all the info. we have so far is from Heis, and it doesn't seem like the gov't thought Stargate had validity:

The foregoing observations provide a compelling argument against continuation of the program within the intelligence community. Even though a statistically significant effect has been observed in the laboratory, it remains unclear whether the existence of a paranormal phenomenon, remote viewing, has been demonstrated.

It's unclear if remote viewing was even demonstrated. This doesn't seems very valid...

"Signif. in lab......"positive factual statement....."it remains UNCLEAR...."Far from a resounding disavowel of the phenom..... Not vallid is not a synonym for nonexistant in my thesaur.What does your's say?

 

[overgrowem]

That's not what happened. No one denied existence of project Stargate. You made a claim in the form of a question, "How about the Govs. remote seers who have located downed aircraft on the other side of the world,or accuratly drawn military facilities in Siberia?"

When you were asked to provide a link to this event occurring because some of us have not heard about it, you told them to google it.
Heis came back and asked for more details considering that there have been many downed aircraft and he couldn't find any information as to the one you were referring. Your reply was that his inability to find the information was 'blinding' because it was widely reported yet you still never provided any details as to where and when this occurred.
Now you want to create a revisionist version of events where instead Heis claimed that the Project Stargate did not exist. Would you care to point out the post where he made this claim?

BTW, I don't know why you have such a hard time with the quotes, just click the "Reply With Quote" button and start typing. You keep deleting part of the /quote tag and making your posts hard to read.

My question was a question in the form of a question U made it a claim when U classified the events I cited as not factual W/O a link(my verasity be damed).Accept them as not falsehoods and the whole thrust of the post changes.I posted a quote from the prog. direct earlier validating the Ruskie base part of my post.As I have said the plane is out there also.Why would I tell a truth and a lie I could have framed my question with just 1 example and it would have been the same inquiry.I mentioned the plane because it was the headline project when this was being reported.As for the rest of your post,I'm sure I can bang out a rebutal to eachconcern.but I am tired tonight and see little or no positive info left to be shared on this subject I'm not going to track down the airplane I know the event happened.Feel free to look if your doubts are that strong .Basiclly I'm ready to move on to the next tempest in a teapot.

 

[tyler.durden]

Okay, lets' take it point by point since you brought this up:

..How about the Govs. remote seers who have located downed aircraft on the other side of the world,or accuratly drawn military facilities in Siberia?Rare,yes,but the odds are beyond astronomical....

This hasn't been established, this is simply a claim you made with no support. So, no point made...

Sorry no links google them and U might get something.the Ruskies used them first,We then started during ,I believe,the Clinton era(maybe before).There were a few jaw dropping sucesses reported,who knows what was stamped secret.Disbanded after 3 or 4 years.

No jaw dropping successes given, again just you making a claim with no support. We know that your facts can be WAY off as you stated disbanded after 3-4 years, Heis showed that the time span was 24 years...

Your lack of information on the U.S.remote viewing program is blinding.The locating of the crashed U.S.plane was widly reported when the program was declassified. Why do U say the crash is secret I didn't say so, and U don't know....Remote viewing HAS been tested(don't tell me U didn't know that).Some people consistently out perform random chance in controled tests.I hardly think a magicians performance is a valid test.

You haven't supported this, just another claim...

I've answered this,they hid objects and some people were able to beat random chance.I didn't say the tests not valid .I said doing it for a magicin in a nightclub is not valid.When they located the plane I'm sure they went there to get recorders,loose bombs, bodies,etc..As for reports links,etc..I'm not the skeptic ,you are ,do your own homework as U said easy..
.

Again, just claims. Why should anyone believe you? You challenged Heis to do your homework for you, he did so, and the results were very different than your claims. It seems the actual evidence is against your claims, not for them...

My statements are not claims,just statements of fact.If U are not curious to check it out so be it,Not worth my time to educate a wilfully in the dark naysayer.Magicians were your go to group to prove whether remote viewing was valid or not,last I heard they haunted clubs,theaters etc.not labs.Debate rule#2,do some opposition research,other than"I know U are but what am I.

Just because you say your statements are fact doesn't make them so, that's why credible links are so important in debate and why without them, rational people can simply dismiss the point you are trying to make...

................CIA.run project Stargate yielded considerable scientific evidence for the reality of the phenomenon"...."Growing #s of individuals could be found to demonstrate high Quality remote viewing such as Hellen Hammond"....In 2nd yr.Pat Price was assigned to provide data on a soviet site of operational significance...."Several details conserning the technology of the Soviet Palatinsk site appear to dovetail with data from other sources".It was noted this was not the projects greatest success.Didn't locate the plane but it is out there.I do not believe your cut and paste indicated the phenom was fake ,bogus or did not exist,just that it was not up to a very high standard but does not question the phenominas ACTUAL EXISTANCE.

It's obvious that it is very important to you that this phenomena has merit. They weren't trying to disprove the phenomena, they were attempting to prove it. And they aparantly couldn't. This doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means that even after decades and untold millions of dollars they couldn't prove anything. That's as good as non-existent in my book. Then again, I don't have a vested emotional interest in this ability existing...

Yes I no doubt did not chose my words as carefully as I should have.My haste was due to the fact that the poster was denying the existance of Project Stargate,yet he had never heard of it......NO ACTUAL BENIFIT.....DISCREDITED...Neither of these mean nonexistant and I have seen no statements that it is NONEXISTANT.The original Question was name a supernatural phenomina.Well if remote viewing is not nonexistant....point made....On a lighter side many,many women share a power with the super hero, Shadow...."the ability to cloud mens minds

So, you started off with your statements as fact and refuse to do simple research. Somebody does it for you that goes against your claims and you move the goalpost from 'I'm stating facts' to 'it doesn't prove it doesn't exist'. Lastly, you attempt to backpedal out of your statements, but you're not fooling anyone here with that, either. If I were you, I would just say I was mistaken and give up, your refusal to do so simply takes away from your credibility...

 

[Padawanbater2]

*Like* Speaking of reading minds, I had that exact outfit on last Friday

[youtube]mpaEYv8teGY[/youtube]

 

[mindphuk]

My question was a question in the form of a question U made it a claim when U classified the events I cited as not factual W/O a link(my verasity be damed).

WTF are you talking about? Your question was a claim that RV was used to find downed aircraft in Siberia. Neither I or anyone else said it was not factual. No one claimed that without a link it wasn't factual. We said no one knows what the hell you are talking about so how about a link so that we understand which event you were referring to. If it was not a claim then what was your question exactly? How about what?

Accept them as not falsehoods and the whole thrust of the post changes.

No one claimed they were false at that point. Quit attributing posts of doubt as outright claims that you weren't truthful.

I posted a quote from the prog. direct earlier validating the Ruskie base part of my post.

You posted nothing until after this went on for 2 or 3 pages.

As I have said the plane is out there also.Why would I tell a truth and a lie I could have framed my question with just 1 example and it would have been the same inquiry.I mentioned the plane because it was the headline project when this was being reported.

Again, people were only asking for where, when and who. Typical questions a reporter might ask. No one said false or lie. You only inferred that.

As for the rest of your post,I'm sure I can bang out a rebutal to eachconcern.

Considering your inability to understand the most simplest of concepts like giving details or a link to this supposed event so we can evaluate what you are talking about, I doubt you can rebut anything I said since everything is in evidence in this thread.

but I am tired tonight and see little or no positive info left to be shared on this subject I'm not going to track down the airplane I know the event happened.

Yet no one else does. Just because you think it was 'widely reported' does not automatically mean that we saw these reports or remember them if we did. The fact that you can't or won't track down the information you are claiming is true says quite a lot about you and your character.

]Feel free to look if your doubts are that strong .

Look where? You have given us so little to go on. If you personally can't find the information from a simple google search using the information you claim to know, how the hell are we supposed to verify it?


Here's one for you. Remember that incident in Colorado with the guy that had the wheel thing that could give free energy? No? Well go look it up yourself, I'm not inclined to do your homework for you. This is exactly what you are doing. You made a claim about some interesting event yet cannot be bothered to give enough information so others can follow along.

Basiclly I'm ready to move on to the next tempest in a teapot.

You don't appear ready for anything if it involves interacting with others on an intellectual basis.

 

[mindphuk]

BTW, just because something falls outside the statistical probability of random chance does not prove anything except that there was some non-randomness associated with the results. You still need to provide direct evidence that it was paranormal abilities that created this deviation from chance and not something else.


For example, here are some chosen passages from An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications

As the parapsychologist John Palmer has recognized,
parapsychologists will have to go beyond demonstrating the presence of a statistical anomaly
before they can claim the presence of psychic functioning. This is because, among other things,
the existence of a statistical anomaly is defined negatively. Something is occurring for which we
have no obvious or ready explanation. This something may or may not turn out to be paranormal,
According to Palmer, parapsychologists will have to devise a positive theory of the paranormal
before they will be in a position to claim that the observed anomalies indicate paranormal
functioning.
Without such a positive theory, we have no way of specifying the boundary conditions for
anomalous mental phenomena. Without such a theory we have no way of specifying when psi is
present and when it is absent. Because psi or anomalous cognition is currently detected only by
departures from a null hypothesis all kinds of problems beset the quest for the claim and pursuit of
psychic functioning.

-----------
Here we encounter another way in which parapsychological inquiry differs from typical scientific
inquiry. In those sciences that rely on statistical inference, they do so as an aid to weeding out
effects that could be the result of chance variability. When effect sizes are very small or if the

experimenter needs to use many more cases than is typical for the field to obtain significance, the
conclusions are often suspect. This is because we know that with enough cases an investigator
will get a significant result, regardless of whether it is meaningful or not. Parapsychologists are
unique in postulating a null hypothesis that entails a true effect size of zero if psi is not operating.
Any significant outcome, then, becomes evidence for psi. My concern here is that small effects
and other departures from the statistical model can be expected to occur in the absence of psi.
The statistical model is only an approximation. When power is sufficient and when the statistical
test is pushed too far, rejections of the null hypothesis are bound to occur. This is another
important reason why claiming the existence of an anomaly based solely on evidence from
statistical inference is problematic.
This is one concern about claiming the existence of an anomaly on the basis of statistical evidence.
In the context of this report, I see it as a minor concern. As I have indicated, I am willing to grant
Professor Utts' claim that the rejection of the null hypothesis is probably warranted in connection
with the SAIC and the ganzfeld databases. I have other concerns. Both have to do with the fact
that no other science, so far as I know, would draw conclusions about the existence of
phenomena solely on the basis of statistical findings. Although it is consistent with scientific
practice to use statistical inference to reject the null hypothesis, it is not consistent with such
practice to postulate the existence of phenomena on this basis alone. Much more is required.
​

 

[overgrowem]

WTF are you talking about? Your question was a claim that RV was used to find downed aircraft in Siberia. Neither I or anyone else said it was not factual. No one claimed that without a link it wasn't factual. We said no one knows what the hell you are talking about so how about a link so that we understand which event you were referring to. If it was not a claim then what was your question exactly? How about what?
No one claimed they were false at that point. Quit attributing posts of doubt as outright claims that you weren't truthful.
You posted nothing until after this went on for 2 or 3 pages.
Again, people were only asking for where, when and who. Typical questions a reporter might ask. No one said false or lie. You only inferred that.
Considering your inability to understand the most simplest of concepts like giving details or a link to this supposed event so we can evaluate what you are talking about, I doubt you can rebut anything I said since everything is in evidence in this thread.
Yet no one else does. Just because you think it was 'widely reported' does not automatically mean that we saw these reports or remember them if we did. The fact that you can't or won't track down the information you are claiming is true says quite a lot about you and your character.

Look where? You have given us so little to go on. If you personally can't find the information from a simple google search using the information you claim to know, how the hell are we supposed to verify it?


Here's one for you. Remember that incident in Colorado with the guy that had the wheel thing that could give free energy? No? Well go look it up yourself, I'm not inclined to do your homework for you. This is exactly what you are doing. You made a claim about some interesting event yet cannot be bothered to give enough information so others can follow along.


You don't appear ready for anything if it involves interacting with others on an intellectual basis.

I'll make comment on 2 points and have no more to say on this subject.My Question contained 2 EXAMPLES IMO, different from a claim or assertion.
Early on I suspected either I was not expressing myself well or U are not cmprehending what U are reading.Your post of my quote about Airplanes on the otherside of the world and of drawing military instalations in Siberia and then morphing it into airplanes in Siberia, makes me suspect the latter is the case.As for for a lack of info,I googled Proj. Stargate and got hundred papers. The first I scaned gave the details on the Russian base project.