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.

 

Remote Viewers Predict Catastrophic Meteor Impact Before 2013

page: 11
56
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Can you truly blame someone, for being deceived, by
something that was designed to deceive?

It comes down to one simple truth..

Said person has decided to disregard logic, instead
embracing the desire to believe.




posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologistDoes farsight ever try to remote view something that is decidable such as determining if an object is metal, rocks, fruit, or dogs? No. They do not choose decidable issues such as whether or not a closed container is full or empty. The questions cannot be decided by a simple yes or no. That is the failure of their experiments.


This is an interesting take.

I'm not saying that this isn't true, but it isn't necessarily the sole standard for Scientific Methold.


a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."


That is a nice way of making something falsifiable, but not necessarily the only way to do so.

While the proponents of this aren't giving some nice empirical findings, neither are the detractors. Both claim confirmation bias and ancedotal knowledge and use the context of the creation of a story to sell the truth/lie of this claim, provide bad experimental controls, have reasons to lie - and that list are al your good traits.


edit on 2012/2/22 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 



While the proponents of this aren't giving some nice empirical findings, neither are the detractors. Both cliam confirmation bias and ancedotal knowledge and use the context of the creation of a story to sell the truth/lie of this claim, provide bad experimental controls, have reasons to lie - and that list are al your good traits.

You are simply stating that the experiments are not rigorous as claimed.

The so-called detractors do not have to provide evidence. There is no need to prove something doesn't work. The onus is on the RV experimenters to provide in evidence in support of their claims and that has not happened.

Poor experimental design is key to RV. In the case of farsight they have loads of excuses as to why they cannot tighten the experiment to remove the shoehorning step.



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Actually, detractors do have to. Proving something to be incorrect is the entire basis of the scientific method.

Otherwise all progress and reality could be denied merely by refusing to test it, and making good stories to sell to the public instead.

.....oh wait....I think I just described some peoples' jobs....



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheExopolitician

As a test to see how many posters on this thread actually watched the videos in mention, how were the targets assigned by probability and to what were they assigned?

What quote did Brown use of Einstein's?


Answer. None.


I'm thinking, I could be wrong - no, I'm not - before one wastes his time it might, just maybe - no, for certain - becoming familiar with what you are criticizing would be essential.

Or one can just look like a blithering babbling fool, a one-eyed wanderer in the forest of self-deception


"A closed mouth gathers no foot" ~TheExopoliticain circa 1Q2012



edit on 22-2-2012 by TheExopolitician because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by TheExopolitician
 


by time lines. "If we knew what we were doing, we wouldn't call it research." Albert Einstein

There are a couple of you which nock this without seeing the material. What you boast the most and loudest about, you don't do.

That my friends is called fishing off the back of a moving boat. String up some Ballyhoo, let out 75yd of line and hold on. Sucks 2bU



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 



Actually, detractors do have to. Proving something to be incorrect is the entire basis of the scientific method.

That's not true. The scientific method does not require proving anything false. Not sure where your confusion lies. It might lie in what is meant by falsifiability.
en.wikipedia.org...


Otherwise all progress and reality could be denied merely by refusing to test it, and making good stories to sell to the public instead.

Again, you are clearly confused about something.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by TheExopolitician
 


I have a long standing position of not watching videos. In the case of your quiz I did not watch the video.

My question to you is why is selection by probability of interest?

BTW, the way you have worded your question and answer you appear to be incorrect. The probability is likely to be 1. None is clearly not a probability.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


you also have a long standing practice to speak only your mind........that don't mean squat here ....move out Stereologist draw fire.....

If you approach things here with science better bring your science. Your built in crap detector don't mean a thing. This isn't a Rant Thread, your word doensn't mean a thing..
Your word means nothing.

Had you watched the video , yeah we already covered that material. Too bad for you. Go fish off the back of someone elses boat.

Interesting about the video was the test was blind 5 different ways and when time was up they did get the loto #
and nobody knew the obj. you snooze you loose................you, go fish


his answer of none was you not watching the video,,,so out of tune
edit on 23-2-2012 by rebellender because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by rebellender
 



you also have a long standing practice to speak only your mind........that don't mean squat here ....move out Stereologist draw fire.....

Odd comment from someone who only posts opinion. Also, wrong since I often respond to links with links. I do not bother with links when others do not.


Interesting about the video was the test was blind 5 different ways

That says nothing about the probability.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


show me your Ph.D. and your data or go fish else where
Dr Courtney Brown working with people way above your pay grade would like argue the science of the matter with there equals. Show and tell or go fish on another boat.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by rebellender
 


An appeal to authority is logical fallacy.

Double blinding has nothing to do with probabilities. Go ask Brown if you are so fond of them.

Let me give you a simple example.
If a person is supposed to guess a card and there are 4 card types then there is a 1 in 4 chance of guessing a card. If you single, double, quadrupled or whatever blind the test the probability remains unchanged.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


WRONG ANSWER in this instance. You are unprepared, uninformed and operating without data.
go fish on another boat



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by rebellender
 


You offer nothing - again.

There are many good introductory sessions in probability that can assist you in learning the difference between probability and experimental blindness.

The blindness used in RV experiments is a red herring.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 




check mate stereologist. Go Fish on another boat.
now you may have the last word


Added::: This Video is in the material provided in the OP.
Assume makes what? out of who?
edit on 23-2-2012 by rebellender because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by rebellender
 


The first post in a long time that possibly has content. Would you introduce the video?

I rarely watch videos and I certainly am not going to watch a video that was posted with no reason given for the video or a statement about its content.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


I really don't care if it works or not. I find the subject interesting, and the amount of money and time and classification on it to be very interesting.

Proving something to be wrong is a version of being falsifiable. To suggest that your hypothesis doesn't need proof because you aren't a believer isn't armour against you needing to prove *your* hypothesis. Your hypothesis being that RV doesn't work.

I have no irons in the fire. I find the idea interesting. I think PSI is about how some people process their subconscious information and therefore it won't hurt my feelings for it to be proven to be wrong. If it is one's subconscious, then sometimes with the right information it will be right and sometimes with the wrong information input it'll be wrong. I'm okay with you proving your hypothesis. Go.
edit on 2012/2/23 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


PREACH IT!!! I feel a wave of action. I know who to invite from my community when it all falls apart to farm the small bit of land I am on, to grow some food, to break bread with. I won't be holding my breath or waiting for some Lightless aliens to get my bacon out of the fire as I do not eat meat.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by RainbowsnUnicorns
reply to post by Aeons
 


PREACH IT!!! I feel a wave of action. I know who to invite from my community when it all falls apart to farm the small bit of land I am on, to grow some food, to break bread with. I won't be holding my breath or waiting for some Lightless aliens to get my bacon out of the fire as I do not eat meat.



I wanna come. Have you replaced the porsche? Can you get it to go on biodiesel?

If you don't eat meat, you can use the cows to capture methane from their gaseous emissions to power your tractor for all the celery you'll need to survive.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 



Proving something to be wrong is a version of being falsifiable.

Not at all.


I have no irons in the fire. I find the idea interesting. I think PSI is about how some people process their subconscious information and therefore it won't hurt my feelings for it to be proven to be wrong. If it is one's subconscious, then sometimes with the right information it will be right and sometimes with the wrong information input it'll be wrong. I'm okay with you proving your hypothesis. Go.

You should read the material before guessing. Many people claim RV is not a form of psi. Maybe they just claim that to avoid the label of woo.

I don't have to prove RV wrong. The onus is on those in RV to prove it works, which has never been done.



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join