It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

David Icke on James Randi sex tapes, False Memory Syndrome, Pedophilia, etc.

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar

Originally posted by WWu777

He just denies and says the paranormal experiences are NOT TRUE AND IMPOSSIBLE.


Currently there is no evidence that any paranormal experience can be validated as true. There mountain of evidence is burden on those who claim to be able to do something beyond known human capacity. They are unable to explain and prove their claims. But that's not what this thread is about, so let's not get sidetracked.


There IS evidence. You guys deny it due to cognitive dissonance.


There really isn't. Nothing credible other then eye-witness testimony has ever come up in my experience or any credible research. Many prestigious and not so-prestigious Universities have had or still currently have a parapsychology department of research. After 60+ years since the trend started no evidence has come up that stands up to peer review or scientific scrutiny.


Red alert! You just activated my bs radar. Your statements above are absolute bunk! There is so much evidence out there that the only real mystery is how any scientist can ignore it but still claim 'expert' status.

You could start with reading these former sceptics:-

Dean Radin
The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena (1997). Note: in Great Britain this book is entitled The Noetic Universe.
Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality (2006)
radins bio

Lawrence LeShan The Medium, mystic and Physicist: Toward a general theory of the paranormal. (2003) Most of which can be read here
The Science of the Paranormal: Telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition and spsychic healing in the light of modern science. (1987)
A New Science of the Paranormal: The Promise of Psychical Research (2009)
LeShans bio

Rupert Sheldrake
The Sense of Being Stared at and other aspects of the extended mind (2003)
Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home (1999)
Sheldrake's bio

As Wuu says. STOP LYING. If you don't know what the evidence is you cannot dispute it!!!




posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   
All three of the examples of "evidence" to paranormal or supernatural activity you have given are all either very subjective and not conclusive, or have already been debunked. Just simply type in any name + debunked on google and you will find umpteen reputable (and some not so much) skeptical studies periodicals and sites that go into excruciating detail on the fallacies of such "evidence."

You need extraordinary evidence and all anybody seems to be able to dig up are flimsy and weak claims.

Not a good showing.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Congratulations Wolf, you just earned yourself nailed on pseudosceptic status.

You are completely blinded to what Charles Fort described as, "the damned facts," that do not fit in with your, at best, incomplete world view. Much of the evidence cited go way beyond the levels of 'proof' required in any other field of scientific research.


Originally posted by WolfofWar
All three of the examples of "evidence" to paranormal or supernatural activity you have given are all either very subjective and not conclusive, or have already been debunked. Just simply type in any name + debunked on google and you will find umpteen reputable (and some not so much) skeptical studies periodicals and sites that go into excruciating detail on the fallacies of such "evidence."

You need extraordinary evidence and all anybody seems to be able to dig up are flimsy and weak claims.

Not a good showing.


For a start we can say that any data contains a subjective element. Even seeing what number appears on a photon counting device is a partly subjective process. If we exclude anything subjective then the entire scientific literature has to be thrown into the trash can. You cannot only apply that reasoning to research you wish to (fallaciously) claim has been debunked, but not to all other fields. Double standards are classic symptoms of denial Wolf. Wake up.

Some of the studies, especially those used in Radin's meta-analyses, are purposely designed to involve as little subjectivity as possible with machines used throughout to eliminate human error or investigator bias. One example is the autoganzfield which included rigorous precautions against sensory leakage, fraud and many other factors which were agreed with the leading sceptic in the field Ray Hyman. Hyman publicly agreed that the experimental conditions and the type of statistical analysis prior to the experiments. A positive outcome would force sceptics to admit something interesting was happening IF THEY ARE OPEN TO GENUINE SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS.

Guess what readers? The outcome confirmed the findings of the previously 'debunked' studies.

Did Hyman admit that telepathy is a reality? No, as a sceptic he quite rightly admitted that although the results were,"intriguing," that if other independent labs could reproduce the results "with the same attention to rigorous methodology, then parapsychology may indeed have finally captured its elusive quarry." see Hyman (1991). Comment. Statistical Science 6:389-92. So if this could be repeated we have our quarry according to the WORLDS LEADING SCEPTIC IN THE FIELD?

Guess what readers? The results have been repeated and shown to be reproducible by a series of studies by an independent lab.

I will allow the readers of this thread to decide for themselves whether this constitutes extraordinary evidence or not.

Most of the so called 'sceptical' studies which claim to debunk simply demand rigour that is NOT required in other fields. Whether you view the above example as conclusive or not, what it does do is illustrate that the so called debunking is frequently just so called sceptics demanding that levels of statistical proof and rigour always go beyond the levels of previous studies. This is of course an impossible demand to meet and the goal posts will always be moved out of reach.

It is interesting to note that many of these demands are made by non-scientists or by scientists whose own work could not come close to meeting the levels of rigour they claim to require of parapsychologists.

I ask you then Wolf, what would you accept as undeniable evidence of the existence of psi? If I can point you to such evidence, I eagerly await the moving of the goal posts!



posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Check out Victor Zammit's new video "The James Randi Challenge Exposed: A Lawyer Explains":

www.youtube.com...

Also check out Darryl Sloan's great video about why faith in the JREF Challenge is irrational:

www.youtube.com...


(post by CatherineBurns removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

new topics

top topics
 
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join