I Was One of America's Top Psychics -- And Like All of Them, a Complete Fraud

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Man, I'm not sure what to say. You are simply not correctly assessing the information available.

It's right there plain as day for people to see. Even your explanation seems to indicate it's of a psychic nature.

I've seen you do this same kinda thing in so many threads...it's just weird.

I've never truly thought anyone here was a disinfo agent, but seriously??

It not only says "model" but it describes numerous experiments, and the results of these.

If you can't infer what this means....wow!




posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





Perhas you can explain to me what "psychic phenomena" you think is taking place - because as far as I can see the paper is talking about a MODEL.......not any actual phenomena at all.


"as far as you can see"? How far is that, I wonder? Page 1? Page 2? Just far have you looked? When gravity is discussed scientifically, do they eschew MODELS and use the actual force itself to experiment with?

Let's not take this research group seriousl since they're only dealing with MODELS

Let us not, in this thread at least, take seriously this:

Emergent Models for Gravity: an Overview of Microscopic Models

Or this:

International Centre for Global Earth Models

If dismissing a scientific research paper because it has used MODELS for their experiments has any validity at all, one has to wonder how it was that AGW gained any traction at all.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Man, I'm not sure what to say. You are simply not correctly assessing the information available.

It's right there plain as day for people to see. Even your explanation seems to indicate it's of a psychic nature.

I've seen you do this same kinda thing in so many threads...it's just weird.

I've never truly thought anyone here was a disinfo agent, but seriously??

It not only says "model" but it describes numerous experiments, and the results of these.

If you can't infer what this means....wow!


He's a troll, trolling as usual.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Dude, relying on the logical fallacy of a strawman only reveals your willingness to deceive and one has to wonder why since you are clearly backpedaling.

I never claimed this study proved a thing. You asked for "feel free to offer some verifiable evidence to support them" and this is what I've done, and it is strong enough evidence to get you to back of this remark: "I'm quite sure you are completely wrong" and instead make this statement: "Now this may ideed be a first step along explaining or showing what psychic poweres actuall are and that they exist and how they work." So why you are now throwing "proof" into the mix is dubious at best.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by milkyway12
 


Idiots believing stupid crap is not the same thing as it being true.

There's absolutely NO proof for psychic powers. None.


There's no proof that gravity exists either, but there sure are a lot of "idiots" who buy that one.


Like you for example.

There is ample proof thqt gravity exists - try jumping up and see if you fall down again.

and of course you completley misrepresent what that article says - it says that this scientist thinks that Gravity does not exist as a force in its own right - rather that it is is result of various other forces that exist - much like heat is actually a result of eth energy level of matter, and not somethign that actually exists as a seperate "entity", even though we often treat it as such.


There are several aspects of gravity that don't make any sense at all, but that doesn't stop people from believing in its existence.



lol - things that dont' make sense aer not things that say it doesn't exist - they are things for which wee do nto have a full understanding, or possible a mistaken understanding of.

do you deliberately misrepresent this stuff, or do you really not understand what it is??
edit on 6-8-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Dude, relying on the logical fallacy of a strawman only reveals your willingness to deceive and one has to wonder why since you are clearly backpedaling.

I never claimed this study proved a thing. You asked for "feel free to offer some verifiable evidence to support them" and this is what I've done, and it is strong enough evidence to get you to back of this remark: "I'm quite sure you are completely wrong" and instead make this statement: "Now this may ideed be a first step along explaining or showing what psychic poweres actuall are and that they exist and how they work." So why you are now throwing "proof" into the mix is dubious at best.


this isn't verifiable evidence - it is a model construct.

sorry you find that difficult to understand, but no longer surprised.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Man, I'm not sure what to say. You are simply not correctly assessing the information available.

It's right there plain as day for people to see. Even your explanation seems to indicate it's of a psychic nature.


well what is it then?

If I can't see it please point it out to me.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Don't feed the trolls.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Please allow me a little time to search the numerous references cited within the document.

I understand being skeptical towards seemingly outrageous claims, but at some point one must be willing to admit fault.

I need to eat dinner, but will be sure to come back later with a full response.
edit on 6-8-2012 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





this isn't verifiable evidence - it is a model construct.

sorry you find that difficult to understand, but no longer surprised.


Then you reject the Theory of Relativity for the same reason, I suppose. Clearly you reject the Big Bang Theory for the same reason. You obviously reject Darwinism for the same reason.

I doubt you are sorry at all, and suspect you know full well I do not have any difficulties understanding what you're saying. I wonder if you'll answer directly whether or not you willingly call the Theory of Relativity completely wrong, or the Big Bang Theory, or Darwinism, or AGW, for their lack of verifiable evidence?



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Please allow me a little time to search the numerous references cited within the document.


no problem


I understand being skeptical towards seemingly outrageous claims, but at some point one must be willing to admit fault.


I do not see education as fault - as knowledge improves so different conclusions can be reached - that is as it should be.

but of course it cuts both ways.......knowledge can be that evidence does exist.....or that what is supposed to be evidence in fact is not.

I am perfectrly comfortable with the concept that there may be a verifiable explaination for "psychic" powers.

But I do not see it in this paper.

Are you comfortable with the concept that there may be no verifiable evidence that psychic powers exist?
edit on 6-8-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





this isn't verifiable evidence - it is a model construct.

sorry you find that difficult to understand, but no longer surprised.


Then you reject the Theory of Relativity for the same reason, I suppose. Clearly you reject the Big Bang Theory for the same reason. You obviously reject Darwinism for the same reason.


lol - you erally do stretch credibility



I doubt you are sorry at all,


did your psychic powers tell you that?

If so they are wrong...again.

I am sorry - I am sorry for any person that is hampered by a disability.



and suspect you know full well I do not have any difficulties understanding what you're saying. I wonder if you'll answer directly whether or not you willingly call the Theory of Relativity completely wrong, or the Big Bang Theory, or Darwinism, or AGW, for their lack of verifiable evidence?


Except of course all of them have a considerable amount of verifiable evidence, from the orbit of Mercury, background cosmic radiation, the fossil record and numerous dating techniques, and actual global warming and known effects of GHG's.

Again - am, truly, deeply sorry that you labour under whatever it is your problem with verifiable evidence is.

edit on 6-8-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I'm okay with that, but I guess you'd have to describe what qualifies as "verifiable evidence".

Something which can be reproduced in a controlled environment?



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I'm okay with that, but I guess you'd have to describe what qualifies as "verifiable evidence".

Something which can be reproduced in a controlled environment?


Pretty much - verifiable evidence tends to be empirical (ie it is the result of observation or experimentation), not just determined by logic or thought experiments.

It also tends to be well documented, with the conditions, etc., recorded, alternative explainations addressed and excluded, etc.

so what the paper in question is, as far as I can see, is a discussion of whether multi-dimensional space is consistent with "observed" para-normal results, and it concludes that it is consistent.

I have no problem with that conclusion per se. Just with the idea that it represents evidence - something others seem to have trouble understanding!



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





Like you for example. There is ample proof thqt gravity exists - try jumping up and see if you fall down again.


Are you serious? Me jumping up and down is not proof of gravity. It is simply proof of me jumping up and down. Is this your idea of proof? There is overwhelming evidence of gravity, but no proof. If we were to take your example as proof, then praying for something and getting that something would prove God.


and of course you completley misrepresent what that article says - it says that this scientist thinks that Gravity does not exist as a force in its own right - rather that it is is result of various other forces that exist - much like heat is actually a result of eth energy level of matter, and not somethign that actually exists as a seperate "entity", even though we often treat it as such.


Dear Lord! It is you misrepresenting, not I and completely so. That which doesn't exist "in its own right" does not exist in the way you want to represent it. Here is what Verlinde actually say's in that article that all I said was there is no proof that gravity exists:


“For me gravity doesn’t exist,” said Dr. Verlinde, who was recently in the United States to explain himself. Not that he can’t fall down, but Dr. Verlinde is among a number of physicists who say that science has been looking at gravity the wrong way and that there is something more basic, from which gravity “emerges,” the way stock markets emerge from the collective behavior of individual investors or that elasticity emerges from the mechanics of atoms.


But be honest for a change, you didn't get that far in the article, did you? You of course, took a single sentence of mine and again, and willfully so, used a strawman.




lol - things that dont' make sense aer not things that say it doesn't exist - they are things for which wee do nto have a full understanding, or possible a mistaken understanding of. do you deliberately misrepresent this stuff, or do you really not understand what it is??


The only thing you could do to support your contention of "ample proof" that gravity exists is use an example of me jumping up and down. No verifiable evidence, no citations, just a silly remark. The post you are replying to was one I made to someone calling people who believe in psychic powers "idiots" and supported that argument by saying there is no proof. I countered that with the fact that there is no proof gravity exists, only evidence of it.

Between you and I, someone is not understanding, but it ain't me.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Please allow me a little time to search the numerous references cited within the document.

I understand being skeptical towards seemingly outrageous claims, but at some point one must be willing to admit fault.

I need to eat dinner, but will be sure to come back later with a full response.
edit on 6-8-2012 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)


hi there unity apparently u dont know the OP
you and JPZ are wasting your time here
aloysius is none other than Prof. Brinkley from Heinlein's Lost Legacy:


“We have an exceptional opportunity to put such tales to practical test,” he told them. “The subject believes fully any statement made by the operator. I shall tell Miss Freeman that she is to exert her will power, and rise up off the floor. It is certain that she will believe that she can do it. Her will will be in an optimum condition to carry out the order, if it can be done. Miss Freeman!”
“Yes, Mr. Huxley.”
“Exert your will. Rise up in the air!”
Joan rose straight up into the air, some six feet— until her head nearly touched the high ceiling. —“How’m doin,’ pal?”—Swell, kid, you’re wowin ‘em. Look at ‘em stare!”
At that moment Brinkley burst into the room, rage in his eyes.
“Mr. Huxley, you have broken your word to me, and disgraced this university!” It was some ten minutes after the fiasco ending the demonstration. Huxley faced the president in Brinkley’s private office.
“I made you no promise. I have not disgraced the school,” Phil answered with equal pugnacity.
“You have indulged in cheap tricks of fake magic to bring your department into disrepute.”
“So I’m a faker, am I? You stiff-necked old fossil-explain this onel” Huxley levitated himself until he floated three feet above the rug.
“Explain what?” To Huxley’s amazement Brinckley seemed unaware that anything unusual was going on. He continued to stare at the point where Phils head had been. His manner showed nothing but a slight puzzlement and annoyance at Huxley’s apparently irrelevant remark.
Was it possible that the doddering old fool was so completely self-deluded that he could not observe anything that ran counter to his own preconceptions even when it happened directly under his eyes? Phil reached out with his mind and attempted to see what went on inside Brincldey’s head. He got one of the major surprises of his life. He expected to find the floundering mental processes of
66
near senility; he found cold calculation, keen ability, set in a matrix of pure evil that sickened him.
It was just a glimpse, then he was cast out with a wrench that numbed his brain. Brinckley had discovered his spying and thrown up his defences—the hard defences of a disciplined mind.
Phil dropped back to the floor, and left the room, without a word, nor a backward glance.
From THE WESTERN STUDENT, October 3rd:
PSYCH PROF FIRED FOR FRAUD
. . . students’ accounts varied, but all agreed that it had been a fine show. Fullback ‘Buzz’ Arnold told your reporter, “I hated to see it happen; Prof Huxley is a nice guy and he certainly put on a clever skit with some good deadpan acting. I could see how it was done, of course—it was the same the Great Arturo used in his turn at the Orpheum last spring. But I can see Doctor Brinckley’s viewpoint; you can’t permit monkey shines at a serious center of learning.”
President Brinckley gave the STUDENT the following official statement: “It is with real regret that I announce the termination of Mr. Huxley’s association with the institution—for the good of the University. Mr. Huxley had been repeatedly warned as to where his steps were leading him. He is a young man of considerable ability. Let us devoutly hope that this experience will serve as a lesson to him in whatever line of endeavor ...”
Coburn handed the paper back to Huxley. “You know what happened to me?” he inquired.
“Something new?”
“Invited to resign ... No publicity—just a gentle hint. My patients got well too fast; I’d quit using surgery, you know.”
“How perfectly stinking!” This from Joan.
“Well,’ Ben considered, “I don’t blame the medical director; Brinckley forced his hand. I guess we underrated the old cuss.”

quoted from Robert Heinlein's Lost Legacy
the moral authority of the author has been asserted

apparently he has no chemtrail threads to troll

as for tis subject like the aforementioned randi he will simply keep moving the goalpost or play sophist games

so enjoy your dinner and do not rush back here



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Aloysius the Gaul sounds like one of those people who refused to believe the world is round. These types of people will defend their close mindedness with attacks, insults and discredit anyone who says otherwise.

Never argue with an idiot, you won't win.
edit on 6-8-2012 by acidsweep because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


AFAIK every investigation of psychics has always turned up either outright fraud or, at best, clever cold reading, but it is refreshing that one of them is willing to own up to it.


Since I am positive that you jest, I'll move along now.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
This is what I've pretty much thought of "Psychics" all along. Having said that, I'm sure there are real ones out there too. What makes me think that is the "link" between my sister and I. No, we can't read each others mind or communicate by telepathy. But, every since we were very young, we each knew when the other was in some sort of trouble. The only way I would believe a psychic, is if they can tell me something they could not possibly know. No cold readings or what have you, something so personal that they could not possibly have guessed it.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by foodstamp
 


For one it is not a real scientific experiment. Randi is not a scientist, and is entirely controlled by one person.

and on the opposite end, Randi has also turned down applicants. hhhmmm


Likewise, Randi has turned down challenges that were given to him.

He has also refused attorney's, and won't allow third party mediation.





 
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join