PK parties [Archive] - Page 2

Lucianarchy

5th July 2004, 03:49 PM

Abstract - In July 1995 the CIA declassified, and approved for release, documents revealing its sponsorship in the 1970s of a program at Stanford Research Institute in Menlo Park, CA, to determine whether such phenomena as remote viewing "might have any utility for intelligence collection" [1]. Thus began disclosure to the public of a two-decade-plus involvement of the intelligence community in the investigation of so-called parapsychological or psi phenomena. Presented here by the program's Founder and first Director (1972 - 1985) is the early history of the program, including discussion of some of the first, now declassified, results that drove early interest.

http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/CIA-InitiatedRV.html

A bit off-topic, I know. But it's to counter the the misinformation being touted by Claus and others about people who work in the 'parapsychology' field.

Lucianarchy

5th July 2004, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I'm not drunk, but I've started a lot of running and weight training over the past 5 days. Maybe that's having some kind of subtle effect on my body {shrugs}

OK.

Now please apologise for your "spastic" insult.

flyboy217

5th July 2004, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/CIA-InitiatedRV.html

Ah yes, BioMindSuperPowers.com, my favorite site ever :)

Unfortunately, they are sold out of the book I wanted:

Book: 2nd Printing of "Penetration" (SOLD OUT)
"... Reveals a long-held secret series of experiences with a 'deep black' agency whose apparent charter was simple: UFOs and extraterrestrials on the moon..."

;) Sorry, I couldn't resist.

kittynh

5th July 2004, 04:17 PM

wow, so like did remote viewing find anything?

And can I have one of those attachments for my PC that gives breathalizer tests? They must only be available for Mac.:D

Interesting Ian

5th July 2004, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by scribble

See? I put it to the audience: Is this tiny being, brimming with impotent rage, a liar? Or is he delusional?

You can see he does not speak the truth.

{farts contemptuously}

Lucianarchy

5th July 2004, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by flyboy217

Unfortunately, they are sold out of the book I wanted:

Have you tried searching for 'Penetration' on www.google.com ?

LettristLoon

5th July 2004, 05:40 PM

Hey!

Why is it that the actual, mechanical workings of the brain, don't necessarily have to have anything to do with PK? This is a question to the believers, and Ian, about whom I know nothing.

From where I sit, if there were such a thing as PK, there would have to be some very large something-or-other (to be technical) in the brain, allowing for that sort of thing.

No? Yes? What's the scoop?

I don't mean to further derail this thread, but then again, even mentioning PK in a post is bringing it just a little bit closer to the original point, so, you know, whatevah.

Furthermore, why waste time attacking or defending oneself in a damned-near-anonymous online forum? Is it productive? Does it make you feel better? Just curious.

Peace,
- B

5th July 2004, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Have you tried searching for 'Penetration' on www.google.com ?

hahahahahahahahahaha

145,986,666,654 hits, all porno.

Interesting Ian

5th July 2004, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by Ed

I told you so. You will find that Ian has no knowledge of neuropsychology so any discussion of this area tends to the characteristic wastelands of philosophy.

Ask him if objects of different weight fall at the same rate, I wager that he is ignorant of the experiment too.

Sigh...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ian
What on earth has "neuropsychology" got to do with anything??

The materialists have rendered the term "consciousness" as ambiguous. People normally understand it as an intrinsic, qualitative phenomenon; that is the raw feel of experience. The materialists however define it as being purely a functional process.

Now I am in absolute agreement that in principle a complete scientific description of the world might be able to incorporate this materialist definition of consciousness i.e one of function. But what it cannot do is incorporate the definition of consciousness understood as an intrinsic, qualitative phenomenon.

Why is this? Because the proper materialist i.e the reductionist materialist, holds that mental properties supervene on physical properties. That is to say that mental properties (the raw feel of experience) are necessarily entailed by certain physical facts. But this simply cannot be done. It cannot be done in principle, not ever, no matter how many thousands of years of advancement in the fundamental sciences. Why? Because physics only ever deals with structure and function. Thousands of years might pass in the advancement of science, millions of years might pass in the advancement of science, but this ain't gonna change cold facts. One cannot (logically) derive qualitative intrinsic experiences from structure and function. To suppose otherwise is to misunderstand what the fundamental science ie physics, is all about.

Materialism is refuted.

It's a stone cold fact.

Can any of you lot understand this though?? :rolleyes:

Interesting Ian

5th July 2004, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by LettristLoon
[B]Hey!

Why is it that the actual, mechanical workings of the brain, don't necessarily have to have anything to do with PK? This is a question to the believers, and Ian, about whom I know nothing.

If you're maintaining that PK has to have something to do with physical processes in the brain, you need to give out your reasoning. Until you do . . .

From where I sit, if there were such a thing as PK, there would have to be some very large something-or-other (to be technical) in the brain, allowing for that sort of thing.

Why?

flyboy217

5th July 2004, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by LettristLoon
Hey!

Why is it that the actual, mechanical workings of the brain, don't necessarily have to have anything to do with PK? This is a question to the believers, and Ian, about whom I know nothing.

I unfortunately am a member of neither set, but I'll pipe in here. I would imagine that, in the end, we would find a link between the brain and PK, if PK is real. As Ian points out, reductive materialism is certainly not the only camp, so perhaps we'll only find a link between mind and PK. But I don't want to speculate just yet. No sense in making my brain hurt before I get them videos.

Furthermore, why waste time attacking or defending oneself in a damned-near-anonymous online forum? Is it productive? Does it make you feel better? Just curious.

Peace,
- B

I think some of these clowns actually know each other ;)

Interesting Ian

5th July 2004, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by flyboy217

I unfortunately am a member of neither set, but I'll pipe in here. I would imagine that, in the end, we would find a link between the brain and PK, if PK is real. As Ian points out, reductive materialism is certainly not the only camp, so perhaps we'll only find a link between mind and PK. But I don't want to speculate just yet. No sense in making my brain hurt before I get them videos.

Apart from the fact that reductive materialism is unintelligible, even if it were not I do not believe it could possibly accommodate psi phenomena. If psi phenomena exists, then we need, at a minimum to embrace interactive dualism, and these phenomena actually strongly suggest the correctness of an idealist metaphysic. Indeed, as I argued in the other thread, retro-psychokinesis seems to be to only be explicable under idealism.

CFLarsen

5th July 2004, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
A bit off-topic, I know. But it's to counter the the misinformation being touted by Claus and others about people who work in the 'parapsychology' field.

Yes, it's very off-topic. We are still waiting for your own examples.

LettristLoon

6th July 2004, 02:53 PM

Interesting Ian, et al...

Okay, I get you, but I disagree. Now, keep in mind, we're not really talking about hypotheses which are provable, at this particular moment. Rather, we're talking about quite a metaphysical debate which may or may not ever be answered.

I don't think that consciousness is necessarily anything more than this gooey material in my head. Note--I didn't say it's "not," just that it's "not necessarily." For example--if you were a pantheist of the least theistic sort, you might say, "Well, matter is special, and in certain formations, it could, very well, enjoy qualitative, 'intrinsic' experience. Why not?"

I guess you're not a pantheist, though, which is all right, too.

But, I'll explain here--if you're a materialist, as I suppose it appears I must be, then there would very much need to be a ray-gun apparatus located in the brain for PK to exist, unless it was a function of some other body part. Spleen?

And even under your hypothesis, you've never said there was a point of interaction between "spirit" and matter, or whatever--only vice verse (matter letting your "spirit," or whatever, know what's going on).

By the way, you didn't use those words, and I hate using them, myself. It's just shorthand, please ignore. You get the drift.

But if PK exists (and, again, in my opinion it probably doesn't), and it has nothing to do with the physical processes of the body, then you'd be looking for a point of interaction between "spirit" and matter. Because, in the final analysis, if the proverbial spoon is getting bent, something has gotta be bending it, and if it ain't an object...?

See, you're kind of stuck, either way. No matter what cosmology you put yer stock in, PK should be easily demonstrable, if only it exists. Look for a point of interaction, anywhere, between matter and seemingly immaterial things, or else cut someone open and look for a raygun. No matter what, it shouldn't be too hard.

- B

flyboy217

6th July 2004, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by LettristLoon
Interesting Ian, et al...

Okay, I get you, but I disagree. Now, keep in mind, we're not really talking about hypotheses which are provable, at this particular moment. Rather, we're talking about quite a metaphysical debate which may or may not ever be answered.

Fair enough.

I don't think that consciousness is necessarily anything more than this gooey material in my head. Note--I didn't say it's "not," just that it's "not necessarily." For example--if you were a pantheist of the least theistic sort, you might say, "Well, matter is special, and in certain formations, it could, very well, enjoy qualitative, 'intrinsic' experience. Why not?"

I guess you're not a pantheist, though, which is all right, too.

But, I'll explain here--if you're a materialist, as I suppose it appears I must be, then there would very much need to be a ray-gun apparatus located in the brain for PK to exist, unless it was a function of some other body part. Spleen?

Of course this poses a problem for the material reductionist view. I think Ian is trying to make the point that material reductionism is untenable in light of qualia. Subjective experience is not made up of the same "stuff" that matter is. I understand the materialist attempt to correlate mental and physical states, but I'm as of yet undecided on the matter. The qualia argument is a terrifically powerful one, I think.

Even if mental states could ever be proven to always correlate to specific physical states (something that can never be proven), it doesn't mean that mental states ARE physical states. But in light of such a correlation, it would make sense to ask where the ray-gun is.

Maybe it's related to microtubules, as Penrose and Hameroff suggest. Or maybe some particular attribute of our brain structure causes quantum collapse in a special fashion that most inanimate forms of matter do not. Maybe it's that special ability to collapse that gives rise to both consciousness and psi. Who knows.

Personally, I'm not interested in looking for the ray-gun, even hypothetically, unless I see some effects of it. Even if it exists, I don't think it's in a way that we could elucidate in conversations like these.

Anders W. Bonde

8th July 2004, 01:10 PM

I'm curious: Does PK in the case of, say, an experiment involving spoon-bending require the object (the spoon) that is to be affected by PK to be in physical contact with the "bender"?

If the answer to this question is "yes", then why not put the "bender" in a straitjacket, tape over his mouth and rest the spoon on his forehead - he should still be able to bend the spoon, no problem. If he cannot bend the spoon under these circumstances, but needs to have his hands clear, then I smell something fishy...

If the answer to the above question is "no", he does not need to be in physical contact with the object, then lay out a number of, preferably identical, spoons at various distances to test the effect of distance, and whether the "bender" is able, upon request, to focus his PK on one or more spoons at various distances. (The "bender" should remain tied to a post in his straitjacket, but the duct tape may now be removed from his mouth, unless the "bender" is one U. Geller).

If the "bender" can't do this either, then I'd say that spoon-bending to demonstrate the possible existence of PK-phenomena seems to be a dead end...

PS: No, I'm not a metallurgist but an aircraft structures design engineer.

PPS: "Metal is metal..." - Says who? ;)

PPPS: IMHO, If JREF were to part with the million, Randi would at an instant get far more exposure than he has accumulated until now by NOT losing the million. So, even though Randi has nothing to do with this discussion, Targ would stand to gain by the provision of evidence (underhand or not) for the existence of PK and/or other PSI - but so would Randi...

Lucianarchy

8th July 2004, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde
I'm curious: Does PK in the case of, say, an experiment involving spoon-bending require the object (the spoon) that is to be affected by PK to be in physical contact with the "bender"?

If the answer to this question is "yes", then why not put the "bender" in a straitjacket, tape over his mouth and rest the spoon on his forehead - he should still be able to bend the spoon, no problem. If he cannot bend the spoon under these circumstances, but needs to have his hands clear, then I smell something fishy...

I think you will find that it is just due to your lack of personal hygeine, because no one even claims to be able to do what you suggest. :rolleyes:

Perhaps if you did the same thing to chess-player, no doubt he would knock the whole board over before his opening move. You won't catch a butterfly in a bear trap.

Still, it gave you the chance to use the word "bender" quite a bit, eh?

flyboy217

8th July 2004, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde
I'm curious: Does PK in the case of, say, an experiment involving spoon-bending require the object (the spoon) that is to be affected by PK to be in physical contact with the "bender"?

Yes, because the hypothesis is that the spoon becomes "soft."

If the answer to this question is "yes", then why not put the "bender" in a straitjacket, tape over his mouth and rest the spoon on his forehead - he should still be able to bend the spoon, no problem. If he cannot bend the spoon under these circumstances, but needs to have his hands clear, then I smell something fishy...

I'm not sure how I'd bend a soft spoon with my forehead. But I could do that with my hands. I'm also not sure what kind of fishy tricks would allow many participants (not the coordinator, who could be tricky) to bend the heads of spoons with their bare hands. Suggestions?

The only suggestions made so far involve an uknown alloy being distributed. But considering he has shown me which spoons to order from the internet, I don't think I'll have that trouble.

PPS: "Metal is metal..." - Says who? ;)

Where'd you get the quote from? I think CFLarsen was the only one to say this, facetiously.

Anders W. Bonde

8th July 2004, 04:31 PM

Luci,

Do the spoon benders not handle the spoons manually at all?

Yup - I just couldn't resist the "bender"-nudge...

Flyboy,

Agreed - the "metal is metal"-thing was CFL's - I'm just hoping he'd reveal where he picked up the original quote from because I've missed it...:)

flyboy217

8th July 2004, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde

Flyboy,

Agreed - the "metal is metal"-thing was CFL's - I'm just hoping he'd reveal where he picked up the original quote from because I've missed it...:)

Ohh well in that case, no need to worry. I think it's just his way of patronizing (nobody in particular?) for no apparent purpose other than to make himself feel more secure:

Originally posted by CFLarsen

It was a joke. Sorry if I find the claim to bend spoons with your mind a bit silly.

I've sent away for Mr. Houck's PK party video. Should be arriving here in the next week or so :)

Lucianarchy

9th July 2004, 04:41 AM

Ian, I am genuinely sorry if I upset you the other day. Seriously.

flyboy217

13th July 2004, 12:43 PM

Bump.

This Saturday, when my friends go to Mr. Houck's PK party, I'll have a better idea of how to follow up.

Lucianarchy

13th July 2004, 01:07 PM

Kudos, young Mr Fly. Kudos!

CFLarsen

13th July 2004, 01:21 PM

Lucianarchy,

Do the spoon benders not handle the spoons manually at all?

Lucianarchy

13th July 2004, 01:41 PM

I can't comment on all spoon benders.

When I do it, I do indeed hold the spoon. I have seen others do the same / similar thing. I have felt spoons in the process of 'elasticity' and felt them when they have 'set'. There is no doubt that people can do this without trickery or props. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

It'll be interesting to see Fly's report, whether supportive or dismissive of the phenomena.

CFLarsen

13th July 2004, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I can't comment on all spoon benders.

Very well: Does Uri Geller handle the spoons manually, yes or no?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
When I do it, I do indeed hold the spoon. I have seen others do the same / similar thing. I have felt spoons in the process of 'elasticity' and felt them when they have 'set'. There is no doubt that people can do this without trickery or props. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Please explain what "elasticity" and "set" means. How do we measure this?

Interesting Ian

13th July 2004, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by flyboy217
Bump.

This Saturday, when my friends go to Mr. Houck's PK party, I'll have a better idea of how to follow up.

If they keep their own spoons I doubt they'll bend :)

billydkid

13th July 2004, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I can't comment on all spoon benders.

When I do it, I do indeed hold the spoon. I have seen others do the same / similar thing. I have felt spoons in the process of 'elasticity' and felt them when they have 'set'. There is no doubt that people can do this without trickery or props. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

It'll be interesting to see Fly's report, whether supportive or dismissive of the phenomena.

You are saying this is demonstratebly true? Pullleeeze! If that is so, why doesn't just one single person demonstrate it in an incontrovertable way? Shoot, you can bend spoons (and one would have to assume anything else) with your mind? Well the world is your oyster. You'd have to be a numbskull not to gobble it up.

Lucianarchy

13th July 2004, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by billydkid

You are saying this is demonstratebly true? Pullleeeze! If that is so, why doesn't just one single person demonstrate it in an incontrovertable way? Shoot, you can bend spoons (and one would have to assume anything else) with your mind? Well the world is your oyster. You'd have to be a numbskull not to gobble it up.

You are making the mistake of enlarging the claim. I can't do it reliably, I don't know of anyone who can. Neither can I bend girders :rolleyes: But the world is indeed my oyster, and I savour rather than gobble.

Lucianarchy

13th July 2004, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Very well: Does Uri Geller handle the spoons manually, yes or no?

Please explain what "elasticity" and "set" means. How do we measure this?

Uri does indeed handle the spoons. I believe everyone does. As far as the elastic / rubbery feeling when the metal 'goes', I don't know how to measure it. The settled metal is as strong as the pre bent metal.

apoger

13th July 2004, 03:10 PM

The settled metal is as strong as the pre bent metal.

That is a testable claim.

Go for it!

Lucianarchy

14th July 2004, 05:23 AM

Originally posted by apoger

That is a testable claim.

Indeed. Have you read the background literature tested it for yourself?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

14th July 2004, 05:31 AM

Just for good measure, toss in a titanium spoon or two.

Does it have to be metal? Perhaps a carbon fiber spoon?

~~ Paul

CFLarsen

14th July 2004, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Indeed. Have you read the background literature tested it for yourself?

Please keep to the subject. We have a testable claim.

What, precisely, was done to test it, Lucianarchy?

Lucianarchy

14th July 2004, 05:58 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Please keep to the subject. We have a testable claim.

What, precisely, was done to test it, Lucianarchy?

On one occaision, I tried to physically un-bend a completely bent curled and twisted spoon which had been bent by an eight year old. I also tried to replicate it on another spoon from the same set with sheer physical force. Couldn't do it.

alfaniner

14th July 2004, 07:32 AM

Did you see the Geller movie on the last commentary page. First I saw it before reading the text -- amazing! (sorry, JR)

Then I read about what he was actually doing and watched it again. Fascinating! If he only claimed to be a magician I would certainly admire his skill (but then Randi wouldn't have revealed the deception, either).

CFLarsen

14th July 2004, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
On one occaision, I tried to physically un-bend a completely bent curled and twisted spoon which had been bent by an eight year old. I also tried to replicate it on another spoon from the same set with sheer physical force. Couldn't do it.

I was hoping that you could direct us to something more than your own accounts. There are no results from metallurgic labs?

Why do you accept this kind of evidence, when you simultaneously insist that lab results are the only thing?

flyboy217

14th July 2004, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I was hoping that you could direct us to something more than your own accounts. There are no results from metallurgic labs?

Why do you accept this kind of evidence, when you simultaneously insist that lab results are the only thing?

Do what you will with this, as it's posted on Mr. Houck's website:

http://www.jackhouck.com/scp.shtml

CFLarsen

14th July 2004, 10:27 AM

flyboy217,

Thanks for the link. He mentions a "metallurgical laboratory", but I can't seem to find out what lab he used. Do you know?

flyboy217

14th July 2004, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
flyboy217,

Thanks for the link. He mentions a "metallurgical laboratory", but I can't seem to find out what lab he used. Do you know?

http://www.jackhouck.com/psd.shtml

It would appear he submitted an official request to the McDonnell Douglas Astronautics laboratory.

CFLarsen

14th July 2004, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by flyboy217
It would appear he submitted an official request to the McDonnell Douglas Astronautics laboratory.

Perhaps. But the rods he speak of were made of steel. Those he submitted to McDDA was made of aluminum:

(Emphasis mine)

From the second link:
Two bent transparent plastic spoons, one undeformed "control" spoon, two bent 3/8-inch (9.5m) diameter aluminum rods and a fractured plastic spoon and a fork were submitted to the Metallurgical Laboratory for examination.

From the first link:
During the PK Party held April 20, 1981, a steel rod of 0.63 cm diameter appeared to change dramatically in surface color when "warm-formed" by Tim. This rod was submitted to a metallurgical laboratory for analysis. The results are contained in this report.

...

At the April 20, 1981, PK Party
...
Prior to the party, I prepared a number of steel rods to be warm-formed by participants.
...
I cut the rod into three sections; one was kept in another room as a control rod, and the other two were available for warm-forming at the party. The ends were filed so that nobody would be cut. Tim took one of these rods and warm-formed it during a period of approximately 15 min. He noted that when the rod became warm and was easily malleable, a permanent color change occurred over the entire surface of the rod (not just where the bend occurred). This could not be explained as the effects of physical force.

The warm-formed rod and its control rod were submitted to a metallurgical laboratory for a scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis of the surfaces of both specimens.

This is known as "bait and switch".

flyboy217

14th July 2004, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Perhaps. But the rods he speak of were made of steel. Those he submitted to McDDA was made of aluminum:

...

This is known as "bait and switch".

The links are not meant to be related, I think. He speaks in a lot of places of bending various metal bars. On the other hand, he does mention that the analysis in the first link was done by "Victor Kerlins," and gives a citation. Presumably this is the same V. Kerlins who signed the second lab study: "V. Kerlins, Materials & Processes - Metallurgy Design & Technology."

Not sure what to make of it yet. I'm not ready to draw any conclusions until my friends give me their report of this coming Friday's event.

CFLarsen

14th July 2004, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by flyboy217
The links are not meant to be related, I think. He speaks in a lot of places of bending various metal bars. On the other hand, he does mention that the analysis in the first link was done by "Victor Kerlins," and gives a citation. Presumably this is the same V. Kerlins who signed the second lab study: "V. Kerlins, Materials & Processes - Metallurgy Design & Technology."

Not sure what to make of it yet. I'm not ready to draw any conclusions until my friends give me their report of this coming Friday's event.

If the links are not meant to be related, why did you post the second link? I asked for the name of the lab which had tested the steel rods, and you gave me a link where plastic spoons and aluminum rods had been tested.

I'm sorry, but I am a wee bit confused.

So far, we do not know which metallurgic lab tested the steel rods. Which means we cannot check the claims that the steel rods were, in fact, tested at a metallurgic lab at all.

Do you agree?

flyboy217

14th July 2004, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

If the links are not meant to be related, why did you post the second link? I asked for the name of the lab which had tested the steel rods, and you gave me a link where plastic spoons and aluminum rods had been tested.

Why did I post the second link? Because it very well could have been in answer to your first question, which was:

I was hoping that you could direct us to something more than your own accounts. There are no results from metallurgic labs?

I was posting results from a named metallurgical lab.

I'm sorry, but I am a wee bit confused.

So far, we do not know which metallurgic lab tested the steel rods. Which means we cannot check the claims that the steel rods were, in fact, tested at a metallurgic lab at all.

Do you agree?

We actually can check this. He mentions the metallurgist by name ("Victor Kerlins"), who happens to be the same metallurgist who tested the aluminum rods, and gives a citation ("ARCHAEUS 2, 1 (Summer 1984)").

I haven't checked it personally, but I'd be interested to see what you learn. In the meantime, I'm making no claims on his behalf.

CFLarsen

14th July 2004, 11:56 PM

The only references I could find about Victor Kerlins are listings in alumni. Nothing about what he does for a living. Nothing about where he works. Nada.

Archaeus is a theosophic term. I could only find one other reference, on none other than the (in) famous Roger Coghill's website.

A PUHARICH Changes in global weather and biological systems with a review of the biological effects of ELF radiation from Tesla to the present. Archaeus 2 (1): 51-75 (1984)
Source (http://www.cogreslab.co.uk/referenceso-r.htm)

Yes, that A Puharich, who has written books about Uri Geller, and has backed him for many years.

Coghill? Blavatsky? Puharich? Geller?

Why am I less than impressed?

flyboy217

15th July 2004, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
The only references I could find about Victor Kerlins are listings in alumni. Nothing about what he does for a living. Nothing about where he works. Nada.

This might be a hint:

V. Kerlins
Materials & Processes - Metallurgy Design & Technology

Considering he signed the MDD Materials & Processes Laboratory Report, I would be led to believe he is a Metallurgy Design & Technology Engineer at McDonnell Douglas. Or maybe the whole thing is forged.

Archaeus is a theosophic term. I could only find one other reference, on none other than the (in) famous Roger Coghill's website.

I only mention this as a possible reference to check if V. Kerlins did indeed perform the analysis of the steel rods, not to confirm or dismiss the finding of Mr. Houck's papers.

What about the signed lab results on the aluminum rods? Worthless?

Lucianarchy

15th July 2004, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I was hoping that you could direct us to something more than your own accounts. There are no results from metallurgic labs?

Why do you accept this kind of evidence, when you simultaneously insist that lab results are the only thing?

I think you'll find Mr Fly has provided you with what you asked for. Lab results.

I have spoken with metallurgist Eldon Byrd a bit about this. He can attest to the phenomena too.

Timble

15th July 2004, 11:01 AM

This Eldon Byrd?

Uri Geller's chum?

At:
http://www.uri-geller.com/books/geller-papers/g6.htm

CFLarsen

15th July 2004, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by flyboy217
This might be a hint:

Thank you.

Originally posted by flyboy217
Considering he signed the MDD Materials & Processes Laboratory Report, I would be led to believe he is a Metallurgy Design & Technology Engineer at McDonnell Douglas. Or maybe the whole thing is forged.

Perhaps.

Originally posted by flyboy217
I only mention this as a possible reference to check if V. Kerlins did indeed perform the analysis of the steel rods, not to confirm or dismiss the finding of Mr. Houck's papers.

As it is, we don't have evidence that he did indeed perform the analysis of the steel rods.

Originally posted by flyboy217
What about the signed lab results on the aluminum rods? Worthless?

Pure aluminum is soft and lacks strength, but alloyed with small amounts of copper, magnesium, silicon, manganese, or other elements impart a variety of useful properties. (http://pearl1.lanl.gov/periodic/elements/13.html)

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I think you'll find Mr Fly has provided you with what you asked for. Lab results.

Not of the steel rods.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I have spoken with metallurgist Eldon Byrd a bit about this. He can attest to the phenomena too.

Let him come on this board and state that. Your word is worth nothing.

Edited to add: I see Timble was quicker than me...

Anders W. Bonde

15th July 2004, 12:17 PM

From said Eldon Byrd's report as shown in the link Timble kindly provided:...snip...How did Geller achieve such results? At the present I have no scientific explanation for what happened during both testing periods. I can say that the possibility of fraud on Geller's part can be virtually ruled out....snip...

Even Byrd cannot rule out conjuring (i.e. fraud), hence the emergency exit "virtually". With Geller's massive history of fraud and deception (well, it's his job!), I am not at all surprised that Byrd cannot rule out fraud entirely. Anyone supportive of Geller's paranormal abilities (not his abilities as a conjurer) should, IMHO, not be regarded as a reliable witness.

Still, the best arbiter of truth would be Geller's replication of experiments under properly controlled conditions. Why doesn't Geller, if his skills indeed are paranormal in nature, just run away with the JREF million?

CFLarsen

15th July 2004, 12:25 PM

What, no scientific explanation? I'm appalled!!!!

Lucianarchy, what exactly did Byrd say to you about this? Did he claim that the rods had been tested in a lab?

flyboy217

15th July 2004, 12:48 PM

The video from Mr. Houck has arrived. Unfortunately, I have no VCR, so will have to wait til I get back in town and can use a friend's. Perhaps I can also digitize it and present it here.

Also, you might find the following link interesting. Although it is hosted on Geller's site, it is an excerpt from a book by Kit Pedler:

http://www.uri-geller.com/books/mind-over-matter/momk07.htm

For a taste, it starts with:

What do I see on the stills of Uri Geller stroking a spoon? I see him holding a teaspoon and stroking it; after a while, it bends and finally breaks in two. At least that is true if the frames of the film are in their actual sequence. As a matter of fact I do not find that film at all interesting, because it is not an experiment; the film was made some time ago, and all I can do now is to talk to the director or Uri Geller about what happened in the past. We cannot be sure where the spoon came from and we do not actually know whether Geller bent it with ordinary pressure from his hands. However, by looking at the actual film in motion, I can get a little more information because his fingers do not appear to be touching the spoon with any force, certainly not enough to bend it: but this is still not nearly sufficient information. An experimenter has to declare everything he did very clearly indeed, so that other people have a chance of repeating his work.

Sounds reasonable so far, I think. Well, read the link for yourself.

Lucianarchy

16th July 2004, 03:46 AM

Flyboy, although Dr Byrd has sadly left this mortal coil, I would be happy to pass on some of the information regarding this phenomena he personally gave me a few years ago, shortly before his death. I would do this in the spirit of good faith and the positive nature of your own personal research. PM me if you want them.

Best wishes.

CFLarsen

16th July 2004, 05:35 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Flyboy, although Dr Byrd has sadly left this mortal coil, I would be happy to pass on some of the information regarding this phenomena he personally gave me a few years ago, shortly before his death. I would do this in the spirit of good faith and the positive nature of your own personal research. PM me if you want them.

Best wishes.

Why keep it secret? You claimed that Byrd could "attest" to the phenomena, but we aren't allowed to hear it?

We should just take your word for it?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I have spoken with metallurgist Eldon Byrd a bit about this. He can attest to the phenomena too.

Hmmm......you didn't know he was dead?

Byrd is sure an interesting fellow:

"had been arrested for possession with intent to distribute obscene materials involving children, and had pled guilty to a reduced charge of possession with intent to distribute obscene materials."
Source (http://www.mindspring.com/~anson/randi-hotline/1993/0012.html)

Nice company you keep, Lucianarchy...

Lucianarchy

16th July 2004, 06:01 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Why keep it secret? You claimed that Byrd could "attest" to the phenomena, but we aren't allowed to hear it?

These were personal communications. But now he has died, I believe it would be appropriate to pass them on to whoever I think fit.

Lucianarchy

16th July 2004, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Nice company you keep, Lucianarchy...

I learned many years ago when I was working with prisoners and ex-prisoners on treatment programmes, that it is crucial to seperate behaviour from the 'self'. Some of the most violent and dishonest people I have ever met still have an aspect that is loveable. It is a horrible barrier to cross, but once you seperate the negative behaviour and engage with the actual self, you have more chance of creating positive change.

Lucianarchy

16th July 2004, 07:06 AM

Derailed, again. Sorry. I'll shut up now.

CFLarsen

16th July 2004, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
These were personal communications. But now he has died, I believe it would be appropriate to pass them on to whoever I think fit.

That's interesting, because when you first referred to Byrd, you spoke of him in the present tense.

Do you believe it is "fit" to tell me?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I learned many years ago when I was working with prisoners and ex-prisoners on treatment programmes, that it is crucial to seperate behaviour from the 'self'. Some of the most violent and dishonest people I have ever met still have an aspect that is loveable. It is a horrible barrier to cross, but once you seperate the negative behaviour and engage with the actual self, you have more chance of creating positive change.

That's also interesting, because you know nothing of me than what I post here. Yet, you are very quick to paint me as a very bad character. You've smeared me, you've tried to silence me, you've lied about me.

It seems that your words contradict your actions.

Lucianarchy

16th July 2004, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

That's interesting, because when you first referred to Byrd, you spoke of him in the present tense.

Do you believe it is "fit" to tell me?

That's also interesting, because you know nothing of me than what I post here. Yet, you are very quick to paint me as a very bad character. You've smeared me, you've tried to silence me, you've lied about me.

It seems that your words contradict your actions.

No, Claus. You don't undersatnd. It is only some of your negative behaviour that I reject, the rest of you appears to be quite loveable. :)

CFLarsen

16th July 2004, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
No, Claus. You don't undersatnd. It is only some of your negative behaviour that I reject, the rest of you appears to be quite loveable. :)

Then I suppose it is OK to tell me what Byrd said.

Lucianarchy

16th July 2004, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Then I suppose it is OK to tell me what Byrd said.

From what I already know of you, I believe it could seriously disturb you.

CFLarsen

16th July 2004, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
From what I already know of you, I believe it could seriously disturb you.

Don't worry, I take full responsibility.

Let me have it.

Lucianarchy

16th July 2004, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Don't worry, I take full responsibility.

Let me have it.

Sorry. No can do. You can't take responsibility for what I choose to do. I don't want to use cliche's, but I actually believe you can't handle the truth yet.

CFLarsen

16th July 2004, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Sorry. No can do. You can't take responsibility for what I choose to do. I don't want to use cliche's, but I actually believe you can't handle the truth yet.

It's not that much of a mind-shattering piece of information.

But if you think it is, then I cannot understand how you are willing to run the same risk with flyboy217, who has only been here less than two months, and has only posted 125 times. Can you really judge another person's ability to recieve this based on so few posts??

You, who are so aware of risks like that?

I don't believe you would be that reckless.

Lucianarchy

16th July 2004, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

It's not that much of a mind-shattering piece of information.

But if you think it is, then I cannot understand how you are willing to run the same risk with flyboy217, who has only been here less than two months, and has only posted 125 times. Can you really judge another person's ability to recieve this based on so few posts??

Yep. end of discussion.

Nucular

16th July 2004, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Sorry. No can do. You can't take responsibility for what I choose to do. I don't want to use cliche's, but I actually believe you can't handle the truth yet. No truth-handler, you! Bah, I deride your truth-handling ability!

(sorry)

Well if he can't handle it, won't he just refuse to believe it? Because surely that's what your opinion is of most of the people on this board isn't it? So what's the harm?

Can I see too? :)

CFLarsen

16th July 2004, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Yep. end of discussion.

I see. Yet again, you point to evidence which we are not allowed to see. Yet again, you point to your connections to famous people in the paranormal world, but we cannot check it.

It really doesn't look good, you know...

Lucianarchy

16th July 2004, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I see. Yet again, you point to evidence which we are not allowed to see. Yet again, you point to your connections to famous people in the paranormal world, but we cannot check it.

It really doesn't look good, you know...

Guess what, Claus? I couldn't give a flying fork.

Let's just leave it as a 'need to know' thing. You don't need to know until I deem that you are ready.

Nucular

16th July 2004, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by flyboy217
Also, you might find the following link interesting. Although it is hosted on Geller's site, it is an excerpt from a book by Kit Pedler:

http://www.uri-geller.com/books/mind-over-matter/momk07.htmI wasn't too impressed with Kit Pedler's book overall - it jumps the gun in explaining phenomena using quantum physics before we can be sure that the phenomena exist; and all it really says in this respect is that some things in physics (e.g. quantum entanglement) are a bit like some of the things psychics say they can do.

But it's good to hear that he won't be convinced by a piece of film, even if he is a little over-credulous when it comes to some other slightly iffy experiments in various psi areas.

But another quote making on or two fairly good points, in the chapter "Do-It-Yourself Experiments":Metal bending is certainly the most experimentally fraught area in the whole paranormal field. It is quite exceptionally difficult to set up conditions which would satisfy a [sceptical] investigator ... It is an ordinary human weakness to want to be successful ... In general, try and create conditions where the entire, recent and continuous history of the metal is known right up to the time when the metal enters the experimental arena. During the actual experiment, the metal must be under the continuous view of at least two independent observers. Above all, do not trust yourself as an observer.Hey flyboy, have you seen that video yet?

CFLarsen

16th July 2004, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Guess what, Claus? I couldn't give a flying fork.

Male bovine manure. If you didn't, you wouldn't be making all these excuses for not revealing the information. You'd simply say no from the start.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Let's just leave it as a 'need to know' thing. You don't need to know until I deem that you are ready.

A 'need to know' thing? You want to show what you see as an important piece of information, one that will support the evidence that paranormal phenomena are real, to people, but it depends on when you "deem" them to be "ready" for it?

Fool. You have nothing. You only want to boost your own reputation. Same old manure from you.

billydkid

16th July 2004, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Guess what, Claus? I couldn't give a flying fork.

Let's just leave it as a 'need to know' thing. You don't need to know until I deem that you are ready.

TheBoyPaj

17th July 2004, 01:50 AM

No I know why Luci was so annoyed when that photo of him was published. The guy's a government agent! We have compromised his secret "psidentity".

Lucianarchy

17th July 2004, 03:56 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

A 'need to know' thing? You want to show what you see as an important piece of information, one that will support the evidence that paranormal phenomena are real, to people, but it depends on when you "deem" them to be "ready" for it?

In respect of the information we are referring to re DR Byrd, yes. Absolutely.

CFLarsen

17th July 2004, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
In respect of the information we are referring to re DR Byrd, yes. Absolutely.

But...what's so secret about it? All Byrd did was to attest to the phenomena, right? So, the cat's out of the bag.

Or are you going to inflate your claim? He told you more than that? Something that needs to be secret, because you have already spilled the beans: Byrd could attest to the phenomena.

So....what's so secret about this? Did Byrd get his information from somewhere we cannot know?

flyboy217

17th July 2004, 07:39 AM

My friends attended the party last night. Both skeptical friends (both are Ph.D. students) are of the opinion that "something very interesting" happened. Both were briefed on potential cheating methods mentioned here, and were asked to stay vigilant.

Both experienced the metal becoming soft and pliable, and could twist the handle around with ease. Both are unwilling to completely rule out "normal causes," as they are physically able to perform similar feats on identical spoons, albeit with great effort.

They also witnessed an elderly woman next to them collapse the bowl of a spoon with apparently no effort, and no help. They thus feel they can rule out the possibility of Mr. Houck performing the feats for the audience members, but can draw no conclusions from this, as they could not confirm that the Oneida silver-plated spoon had never been tampered with. Their attempt to unbend the same bowl was unsuccessful, as was their attempt to perform the same feat on another spoon from the batch. Inconclusive.

Friend 3 also reported the metal becoming soft, and was able to perform twisting feats that apparently lie outside her normal range of strength. A later attempt by her to unbend the silverware failed, and she was also unable to cause the same outcome on an identical piece of flatware using "normal" methods.

All utensils were brought to the party by my friends, and never left their sight or hands.

Consensus: Further investigation warranted. They believe their experience is in agreement with Radin's and Crichton's testimonies.

Unfortunately, my friends are not interested in writing up a report themselves. I am relaying what they have told me, and will provide pictures when they are available. This post is meant as nothing but my report of their experience

billydkid

17th July 2004, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by flyboy217
My friends attended the party last night. Both skeptical friends (both are Ph.D. students) are of the opinion that "something very interesting" happened. Both were briefed on potential cheating methods mentioned here, and were asked to stay vigilant.

Both experienced the metal becoming soft and pliable, and could twist the handle around with ease. Both are unwilling to completely rule out "normal causes," as they are physically able to perform similar feats on identical spoons, albeit with great effort.

They also witnessed an elderly woman next to them collapse the bowl of a spoon with apparently no effort, and no help. They thus feel they can rule out the possibility of Mr. Houck performing the feats for the audience members, but can draw no conclusions from this, as they could not confirm that the Oneida silver-plated spoon had never been tampered with. Their attempt to unbend the same bowl was unsuccessful, as was their attempt to perform the same feat on another spoon from the batch. Inconclusive.

Friend 3 also reported the metal becoming soft, and was able to perform twisting feats that apparently lie outside her normal range of strength. A later attempt by her to unbend the silverware failed, and she was also unable to cause the same outcome on an identical piece of flatware using "normal" methods.

All utensils were brought to the party by my friends, and never left their sight or hands.

Consensus: Further investigation warranted. They believe their experience is in agreement with Radin's and Crichton's testimonies.

Unfortunately, my friends are not interested in writing up a report themselves. I am relaying what they have told me, and will provide pictures when they are available. This post is meant as nothing but my report of their experience

I see where this is going. Stop the presses - an amazing, supernatural phenomena which has escaped the general notice of mankind for tens of thousands of years is only now being be revealed though the efforts of those fearless enough to question scientific orthodoxy and linear thinking. Quick, someone contact the National Enquirer.

Interesting Ian

17th July 2004, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by flyboy217
[B]My friends attended the party last night. Both skeptical friends (both are Ph.D. students) are of the opinion that "something very interesting" happened. Both were briefed on potential cheating methods mentioned here, and were asked to stay vigilant.

Both experienced the metal becoming soft and pliable, and could twist the handle around with ease.

Hmmm . . . they definitely used their own spoons?

Both are unwilling to completely rule out "normal causes," as they are physically able to perform similar feats on identical spoons, albeit with great effort.

I don't understand this; it should be very clear whether they are using less strength than they normally do in order to get spoons to bend.

Friend 3 also reported the metal becoming soft, and was able to perform twisting feats that apparently lie outside her normal range of strength. A later attempt by her to unbend the silverware failed, and she was also unable to cause the same outcome on an identical piece of flatware using "normal" methods.

All utensils were brought to the party by my friends, and never left their sight or hands.

Consensus: Further investigation warranted. They believe their experience is in agreement with Radin's and Crichton's testimonies.

Further investigation is always to be desired. Nevertheless, if what you say is an accurate portrayal of the events that occurred, it seems pretty clear to me that something interesting was happening.

CFLarsen

17th July 2004, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by flyboy217
My friends attended the party last night. Both skeptical friends (both are Ph.D. students) are of the opinion that "something very interesting" happened. Both were briefed on potential cheating methods mentioned here, and were asked to stay vigilant.

Both experienced the metal becoming soft and pliable, and could twist the handle around with ease. Both are unwilling to completely rule out "normal causes," as they are physically able to perform similar feats on identical spoons, albeit with great effort.

They also witnessed an elderly woman next to them collapse the bowl of a spoon with apparently no effort, and no help. They thus feel they can rule out the possibility of Mr. Houck performing the feats for the audience members, but can draw no conclusions from this, as they could not confirm that the Oneida silver-plated spoon had never been tampered with. Their attempt to unbend the same bowl was unsuccessful, as was their attempt to perform the same feat on another spoon from the batch. Inconclusive.

Friend 3 also reported the metal becoming soft, and was able to perform twisting feats that apparently lie outside her normal range of strength. A later attempt by her to unbend the silverware failed, and she was also unable to cause the same outcome on an identical piece of flatware using "normal" methods.

All utensils were brought to the party by my friends, and never left their sight or hands.

Consensus: Further investigation warranted. They believe their experience is in agreement with Radin's and Crichton's testimonies.

Fantastic! Now, let's do just that. Let's investigate further.

Originally posted by flyboy217
Unfortunately, my friends are not interested in writing up a report themselves. I am relaying what they have told me, and will provide pictures when they are available. This post is meant as nothing but my report of their experience

Aw, shucks.....now, why is it that this excuse always come up, even after such fantastic results are being reported? Why not investigate further? Why step back from a truly amazing discovery, that will fundamentally change the way we understand the universe?

Who is afraid of reality, the skeptics or the believers?

Interesting Ian

17th July 2004, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by billydkid

I see where this is going. Stop the presses - an amazing, supernatural phenomena which has escaped the general notice of mankind for tens of thousands of years is only now being be revealed though the efforts of those fearless enough to question scientific orthodoxy and linear thinking. Quick, someone contact the National Enquirer.

A nice intelligent response as per usual Billy :rolleyes:

This is what I'm always saying about Skeptics; it doesn't matter how compelling the evidence is, they still will not believe. How rational is that? :rolleyes:

Interesting Ian

17th July 2004, 08:30 AM

CFLarsen

17th July 2004, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
This is what I'm always saying about Skeptics; it doesn't matter how compelling the evidence is, they still will not believe. How rational is that? :rolleyes:

What "evidence" are you talking about here?

We have a story from flyboy217, who tells of two friends of his who seems to have experienced something interesting.

We have a story, Ian. Unverifiable, and what's worse, there is no chance we will ever get to investigate this story.

Interesting Ian

17th July 2004, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

What "evidence" are you talking about here?

We have a story from flyboy217, who tells of two friends of his who seems to have experienced something interesting.

We have a story, Ian. Unverifiable, and what's worse, there is no chance we will ever get to investigate this story.

I wasn't referring to this spoon bending in particular. I was talking about all the evidence for paranormal phenomena both scientific and anecdotal.

As for this spoon bending . .well . . .I am more disposed to believe it's possible than previously. That is the rational approach to adopt.

But we have to rely upon Flyboy's honesty and his friends' honesty. I never believe because of one anecdote. I simply note it and consider it to be some evidence for the alleged phenomenon in question. But further investigation is required. Ideally I'd need to experience it for myself.

CFLarsen

17th July 2004, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I wasn't referring to this spoon bending in particular. I was talking about all the evidence for paranormal phenomena both scientific and anecdotal.

As for this spoon bending . .well . . .I am more disposed to believe it's possible than previously. That is the rational approach to adopt.

But we have to rely upon Flyboy's honesty and his friends' honesty. I never believe because of one anecdote. I simply note it and consider it to be some evidence for the alleged phenomenon in question. But further investigation is required. Ideally I'd need to experience it for myself.

But the point is, we cannot rely on honesty. We have to investigate the evidence. Simply accumulating stories like these is evidence of nothing, and there is absolutely no reason to believe this, or any other paranormal phenomenon, until the evidence is in.

Stories are not evidence, Ian.

Anders W. Bonde

17th July 2004, 08:59 AM

Well - if Mr. Houck's claim is genuine, he should have no problem walking off with the JREF Challenge million. Taking The Challenge would be an excellent opportunity to initiate further investgation, IMO, as it would provide a cool million + for further research.

Somehow though, my psychic abilities tell me he's not going to apply for The Challenge - let alone win it. But, I could, of course, be wrong...

Think of one of the implications if this were a real phenomenon - little old women hampered by arthritis could be helped immensely - to open jars, to render an assultants weapon useless and what not. In aerospace, we'd be able to install lockbolts and rivets without expensive installation tools. The list of possibilities this new faculty would provide for mankind would appear to be limited only by imagination...

Mercutio

17th July 2004, 09:09 AM

I'm sorry--maybe it is just me, but even when I take the report at face value, I see nothing paranormal there. Metal which has been manipulated for a while bends more easily than that which has not. No news there--even in Randi's Nova video, he makes use of this fact in his demonstration of spoon-bending. What is the paranormal aspect?

So, what am I missing? If this were to be investigated under more controlled conditions, how would it be done? Use mechanical manipulators instead of hands, with the crucial difference being that one set of spoons is focused on by the psi advocates? Strain gauges to determine the plasticity of the metal (rather than a subjective report)? Or must there be physical contact of hand to spoon, in such a manner that an objective measure cannot be obtained?

Interesting Ian

17th July 2004, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

But the point is, we cannot rely on honesty. We have to investigate the evidence. Simply accumulating stories like these is evidence of nothing, and there is absolutely no reason to believe this, or any other paranormal phenomenon, until the evidence is in.

Stories are not evidence, Ian.

I do not rely upon honesty. Indeed I am very wary of peoples' honesty, especially in the context of unusual claims.

So I am not saying "Wow!, these experiences of flyboy's friends prove that macro-psychokinesis takes place". If I could be 100% confident that these events took place as told then it would strongly suggest the reality of psychokinesis (since they used their own spoons and never let go of them).

But I cannot be confident that these events took place as told. But that's a far cry from simply assuming that the story is just a fabrication! It's not one single anecdote which is particular persuasive, it is anecdotes of similar phenomena, and similar psychological states precipitating such phenomena, occurring throughout the history of mankind, and across differing cultures. If such is reported then at least something interesting is going on.

CFLarsen

17th July 2004, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I do not rely upon honesty. Indeed I am very wary of peoples' honesty, especially in the context of unusual claims.

So I am not saying "Wow!, these experiences of flyboy's friends prove that macro-psychokinesis takes place". If I could be 100% confident that these events took place as told then it would strongly suggest the reality of psychokinesis (since they used their own spoons and never let go of them).

But I cannot be confident that these events took place as told. But that's a far cry from simply assuming that the story is just a fabrication! It's not one single anecdote which is particular persuasive, it is anecdotes of similar phenomena, and similar psychological states precipitating such phenomena, occurring throughout the history of mankind, and across differing cultures. If such is reported then at least something interesting is going on.

Yes, it is called "story-telling", and it has been a very important part in the history of mankind, to explain the various phenomena, like thunder, shooting stars, floods, and droughts.

But that doesn't mean that they tell the truth about the phenomena.

Lucianarchy

17th July 2004, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by flyboy217
My friends attended the party last night. Both skeptical friends (both are Ph.D. students) are of the opinion that "something very interesting" happened. Both were briefed on potential cheating methods mentioned here, and were asked to stay vigilant.

Both experienced the metal becoming soft and pliable, and could twist the handle around with ease. Both are unwilling to completely rule out "normal causes," as they are physically able to perform similar feats on identical spoons, albeit with great effort.

They also witnessed an elderly woman next to them collapse the bowl of a spoon with apparently no effort, and no help. They thus feel they can rule out the possibility of Mr. Houck performing the feats for the audience members, but can draw no conclusions from this, as they could not confirm that the Oneida silver-plated spoon had never been tampered with. Their attempt to unbend the same bowl was unsuccessful, as was their attempt to perform the same feat on another spoon from the batch. Inconclusive.

Friend 3 also reported the metal becoming soft, and was able to perform twisting feats that apparently lie outside her normal range of strength. A later attempt by her to unbend the silverware failed, and she was also unable to cause the same outcome on an identical piece of flatware using "normal" methods.

All utensils were brought to the party by my friends, and never left their sight or hands.

Consensus: Further investigation warranted. They believe their experience is in agreement with Radin's and Crichton's testimonies.

Unfortunately, my friends are not interested in writing up a report themselves. I am relaying what they have told me, and will provide pictures when they are available. This post is meant as nothing but my report of their experience

Thank you. Flyboy. I hope we can encourage your pals to write it up some time, though. These experiences are becoming pretty commonplace, as you are finding out. It is understandable that they are perhaps still coming to terms with what has happened. But I hope they continue to develop their experiences and do their bit for the advancement of humanity. Good stuff.

Lucianarchy

17th July 2004, 09:42 AM

Interesting Ian

17th July 2004, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde
[B]Well - if Mr. Houck's claim is genuine, he should have no problem walking off with the JREF Challenge million. Taking The Challenge would be an excellent opportunity to initiate further investgation, IMO, as it would provide a cool million + for further research.

Somehow though, my psychic abilities tell me he's not going to apply for The Challenge - let alone win it. But, I could, of course, be wrong...

This is the problem you see; you're simply not interested are you. Bollocks to all the peer reviewed scientific research. If one cannot pass Randi's tests which he determines what is required to pass these tests, then no paranormal phenomena exists whatsoever. People on this board are simply not interested in getting to the truth. This is why I despise the people on here.

Interesting Ian

17th July 2004, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Mercutio
[B]I'm sorry--maybe it is just me, but even when I take the report at face value, I see nothing paranormal there. Metal which has been manipulated for a while bends more easily than that which has not.

This can very easily be tested. One should be able to bend spoons after a while at home. If they could bend a particular spoon at this party, but could not do so afterwards by applying the same pressure, then what you say simply doesn't stand up.

CFLarsen

17th July 2004, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Cut the "we" , Claus. I have already told you, it is you who is not able to investigate. And the reasons are entirely of your own construction. Until you see this, you will not see anything.

Put down your net. Let go of the anger.

And wait for butterflies.

Wrong again. We are not able to investigate, because nobody here are allowed to see the evidence.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
This is the problem you see; you're simply not interested are you. Bollocks to all the peer reviewed scientific research. If one cannot pass Randi's tests which he determines what is required to pass these tests, then no paranormal phenomena exists whatsoever.

You confuse the Challenge with scientific testing. It is far, far easier to pass the Challenge, yet nobody steps up to the plate.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
People on this board are simply not interested in getting to the truth. This is why I despise the people on here.

Why are you here, then? Leave, if this place disgusts you so much.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
This can very easily be tested. One should be able to bend spoons after a while at home. If they could bend a particular spoon at this party, but could not do so afterwards by applying the same pressure, then what you say simply doesn't stand up.

Go ahead. Test this, then. Let us know what you came up with.

Anders W. Bonde

17th July 2004, 10:30 AM

Ian,

You just don't get it, do you? I am interested, but I do demand evidence.

Nobody claims that The JREF Challenge is an all-encompassing, peer-reviewed scientific study. Passing the JREF Challenge, however, is no problem what so ever - assuming the purported phenomenon is genuine. Passing the Challenge, which is a helluva lot easier than getting a research grant of the same size, since all Houck has to do is to demonstrate, using a mutually acceptable protocol, that he can do what he says he can do, will not only provide more than a million dollars, which can then be spent on scientific research of the phenomenon, it will also generate a huge amount of public interest - including from the World's scientific community.

So spare me your ad hominem condescending prejudices and projections.

Interesting Ian

17th July 2004, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde
[B]Ian,

You just don't get it, do you? I am interested, but I do demand evidence.

Nobody claims that The JREF Challenge is an all-encompassing, peer-reviewed scientific study. Passing the JREF Challenge, however, is no problem what so ever - assuming the purported phenomenon is genuine.

I absolutely disagree. I have less than zero interest in the failure of anyone to pass the challenge. It simply doesn't mean anything to me. From what I gather Randi demands quite marked effects which can be produced on demand. I do not believe paranormal phenomena to be like this.

flyboy217

17th July 2004, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Fantastic! Now, let's do just that. Let's investigate further.

Aw, shucks.....now, why is it that this excuse always come up, even after such fantastic results are being reported? Why not investigate further? Why step back from a truly amazing discovery, that will fundamentally change the way we understand the universe?

Who is afraid of reality, the skeptics or the believers?

Very interesting post there. I mention that they believe it should be investigated further, but that they don't care to write up a report, and you assume this means they don't want to investigate further? They will be investigating further, believe me. But as we've mentioned, even a meticulous report carries no more weight as evidence than this simple story... so what would be the point? My friends are not nearly as interested in psi as I am.

As I said in my earlier post (and as billydkid clearly missed), the post was only meant as my relation of their experience. As you say, for all you know, I could be making it up, they could be making it up, etc. Nobody is asking anyone to believe anything.--this is an internet forum, after all. But as very close friends I've known my whole life, who have demonstrated exceptional reasoning skills, intelligence, and honesty, and who were highly skeptical of the claim, their testimony has got me thinking. That is all.

I offer you no more than my anecdote, meant as nothing but perhaps an interesting story. If you care to investigate yourself, Jack is having another party in California later this year.

Anders W. Bonde

17th July 2004, 11:13 AM

Ian, I am also not interested in seeing failures to pass the Challenge - so at least we agree on that. I am interested in seeing a claim pass the test.

From what I've read on this thread about Houck's purported paranormal abilities, the effects are claimed to be both marked and producible on demand. Houck should not have a problem agreeing to a protocol then.

Assuming paranormal abilities cannot be produced upon demand, I can't really see how we then would be able to subject them to scientific scrutiny for the benefit of mankind. Still, Lucianarchy and the majority of PSI researchers do say that the effects are reproducible - which implies that setting up the right test conditions enables production of the ability on demand. And don't psychics who claim to speak with the dead do that on demand either? If a general feature of paranormal abilities is that they cannot be produced on demand, and under controlled conditions, why should we believe them to be other than empty claims?

CFLarsen

17th July 2004, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by flyboy217
Very interesting post there. I mention that they believe it should be investigated further, but that they don't care to write up a report, and you assume this means they don't want to investigate further? They will be investigating further, believe me.

I will believe that, when I see it.

Originally posted by flyboy217
But as we've mentioned, even a meticulous report carries no more weight as evidence than this simple story... so what would be the point? My friends are not nearly as interested in psi as I am.

They were interested enough to go to the party, and they saw something interesting. So, why not? Why only keep it an unverifiable anecdote?

Originally posted by flyboy217
As I said in my earlier post (and as billydkid clearly missed), the post was only meant as my relation of their experience. As you say, for all you know, I could be making it up, they could be making it up, etc. Nobody is asking anyone to believe anything.--this is an internet forum, after all. But as very close friends I've known my whole life, who have demonstrated exceptional reasoning skills, intelligence, and honesty, and who were highly skeptical of the claim, their testimony has got me thinking. That is all.

I offer you no more than my anecdote, meant as nothing but perhaps an interesting story. If you care to investigate yourself, Jack is having another party in California later this year.

I'll see if I can make it.

The problem with your stories is that people like Lucianarchy gobble them up and take them as evidence of paranormal phenomena. There is a reason why believers can point to "many" stories like yours, and that is because people like you post them. Sure, it may be blatantly obvious that this is not evidence of anything, but it will still enter that Great Library of Anecdotes.

Be careful what you post, because it will be taken out of context, inflated and distorted.

flyboy217

17th July 2004, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I will believe that, when I see it.

I'm not sure how you plan on "seeing" my friends investigate further.

They were interested enough to go to the party, and they saw something interesting. So, why not? Why only keep it an unverifiable anecdote?

How would writing up their report in a formal fashion change it from being an unverifiable anecdote? Why wouldn't it be more prudent to investigate further first, and only then publish a report?

I'll see if I can make it.

That would be great. I would like to attend it myself.

The problem with your stories is that people like Lucianarchy gobble them up and take them as evidence of paranormal phenomena. There is a reason why believers can point to "many" stories like yours, and that is because people like you post them. Sure, it may be blatantly obvious that this is not evidence of anything, but it will still enter that Great Library of Anecdotes.

Be careful what you post, because it will be taken out of context, inflated and distorted.

As long as I am convinced that the story is accurate and honest, I should have no problem with Luci mentioning it as an anecdote, should I?

17th July 2004, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

This is the problem you see; you're simply not interested are you. Bollocks to all the peer reviewed scientific research. If one cannot pass Randi's tests which he determines what is required to pass these tests, then no paranormal phenomena exists whatsoever. People on this board are simply not interested in getting to the truth. This is why I despise the people on here.

Yet you remain. Does make an elequent statement about your self image. Funny.

CFLarsen

17th July 2004, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by flyboy217
I'm not sure how you plan on "seeing" my friends investigate further.

I will believe that they are investigating, when I see something tangible from them.

Originally posted by flyboy217
How would writing up their report in a formal fashion change it from being an unverifiable anecdote? Why wouldn't it be more prudent to investigate further first, and only then publish a report?

Hey, by all means! So, are they? How are they going to investigate? When can we see something?

Originally posted by flyboy217
As long as I am convinced that the story is accurate and honest, I should have no problem with Luci mentioning it as an anecdote, should I?

You just wait and see how Lucianarchy can distort a story like yours. Then you will see how much damage he does.

flyboy217

17th July 2004, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I will believe that they are investigating, when I see something tangible from them.

Okay. It is of no importance to me if anyone believes they are investigating or not, after all.

Hey, by all means! So, are they? How are they going to investigate? When can we see something?

I'll let you know when I discover more on how they're investigating. The initial stages are simple: try to reproduce what happened at the party, outside the party. If they cannot do even this, there may be no need to go further.

You just wait and see how Lucianarchy can distort a story like yours. Then you will see how much damage he does.

Any story can be exaggerated and distorted. I don't see why this should prevent me from recounting what I believe to be an honest and accurate anecdote.

Interesting Ian

17th July 2004, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

The problem with your stories is that people like Lucianarchy gobble them up and take them as evidence of paranormal phenomena.

You mean proof not evidence. Clearly they constitute evidence.

Now it is true that many believers uncritically accept such stories. They just "gobble them up" as you put it. It is also true that all Skeptics automatically reject such stories (this is true by definition by virtue of how I define Skeptic). There are just a few people like me who are genuine seekers of the truth. Sad but true.

Interesting Ian

17th July 2004, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by Ed
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

This is the problem you see; you're simply not interested are you. Bollocks to all the peer reviewed scientific research. If one cannot pass Randi's tests which he determines what is required to pass these tests, then no paranormal phenomena exists whatsoever. People on this board are simply not interested in getting to the truth. This is why I despise the people on here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet you remain. Does make an elequent statement about your self image. Funny.

WOW! That was funny Ed. Hee hee :rolleyes:

Mercutio

17th July 2004, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

This can very easily be tested. One should be able to bend spoons after a while at home. If they could bend a particular spoon at this party, but could not do so afterwards by applying the same pressure, then what you say simply doesn't stand up. Thanks, Ian. But (and this is just my ignorance about metal talking) suppose that working metal in this fashion somehow tempered it, such that it was easy to do the first time, but more difficult in following times (again, I have no idea if this might happen, but if it did, it would explain the phenomenon). In that case, is there still a difference between spoons bent by psi-advocates and those bent in a similar (multiple small stresses plasticising the metal) fashion by machine? Again, the key seems to be the necessity of touching, by hand specifically. Do any of the psi advocates suggest that a machine-manipulated spoon, if they are there to concentrate on it, will behave differently from a machine-manipulated spoon which they ignore?

JPK

17th July 2004, 12:37 PM

Hello Ian,

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

It's not one single anecdote which is particular persuasive, it is anecdotes of similar phenomena, and similar psychological states precipitating such phenomena, occurring throughout the history of mankind, and across differing cultures. If such is reported then at least something interesting is going on.

In my opinion, there are all kinds of evidence. Anecdotal is very week evidence. Adding week evidence together doesn't make it stronger evidence. The interseting thing going on here might be nothing more then an entertaining party act. Nothing from what I've read here leads to people having actually viewed a paranormal event. Proper investigation is needed in order to determine if the event was actually paranormal. Of course no investigation is needed if you just want to sit back and enjoy the show. :)

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

People on this board are simply not interested in getting to the truth. This is why I despise the people on here.

Ouch. That's a pretty broad brush you are painting with... :)

JPK

Interesting Ian

17th July 2004, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by JPK
Hello Ian,

In my opinion, there are all kinds of evidence. Anecdotal is very week evidence. Adding week evidence together doesn't make it stronger evidence.

Absolute nonsense. I suspect you're just repeating what other people have said without really thinking about it.

Let's consider Lucid dreams; you know, those dreams where you actually realise you're dreaming whilst in the dream state. Now 100 years ago they weren't supposed to exist according to orthodox thought.

If we had lived then would it have been reasonable to accept orthodox "wisdom"? I would suggest that if there had only ever been one anecdote from one individual that he had been aware that he was dreaming whilst in the dream state, and no-one else had ever reported a lucid dream, then the evidence for the reality of lucid dreaming would have been very weak. Now compare that situation to the reality. Most people have experienced lucid dreams. Are you seriously suggesting that the fact that the vast majority of us have experienced lucid dreams constitutes no more evidence for their reality than if only one person ever had reported a lucid dream?? Come now, let's not be silly. It would have been rational to reject orthodox opinion. In other words it would have been rational not to be a Skeptic regarding this phenomenon.

The interseting thing going on here might be nothing more then an entertaining party act. Nothing from what I've read here leads to people having actually viewed a paranormal event.

People bent their spoons without using the appropriate force necessary. Moreover, these were not special spoons, but spoons brought from home and which they did not relinquish for anyone to tamper with. This is prima facie evidence for macro-psychokinesis. I'm not saying that it did occur, I simply don't know; but it is evidence.

JPK

17th July 2004, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Absolute nonsense. I suspect you're just repeating what other people have said without really thinking about it.

Your suspicions are wrong.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Let's consider Lucid dreams; you know, those dreams where you actually realise you're dreaming whilst in the dream state. Now 100 years ago they weren't supposed to exist according to orthodox thought.

If we had lived then would it have been reasonable to accept orthodox "wisdom"? I would suggest that if there had only ever been one anecdote from one individual that he had been aware that he was dreaming whilst in the dream state, and no-one else had ever reported a lucid dream, then the evidence for the reality of lucid dreaming would have been very weak. Now compare that situation to the reality. Most people have experienced lucid dreams. Are you seriously suggesting that the fact that the vast majority of us have experienced lucid dreams constitutes no more evidence for their reality than if only one person ever had reported a lucid dream?? Come now, let's not be silly. It would have been rational to reject orthodox opinion. In other words it would have been rational not to be a Skeptic regarding this phenomenon.

Lucid dreaming? How did we get here? Most people have experienced lucid dreaming? Sorry I'm not aware of that.
Anacdotal evidence is very weak. The majority of the people once thought the Earth was the center of the universe. Didn't make it so. I think I undertand what you are tring to argue but I don't see how it applies. Something other than anacdotal evidence to collaborate with it helps strengthen the evidence.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

People bent their spoons without using the appropriate force necessary.

People "claimed " they bent their spoons without using appropriate force nessessary. And what exactly is the appropriate force nessessary? That is a hard thing to estimate. Most people don't spend there time bending spoons with thier hands. Take a small box. Fill it with lead. Ask someone to lift it without telling them whats in it. They will usually underestimate the force needed. The next time they go to lift it, it will feel easier. In between lifts, sell them some magic strenght potion and you might get them to believe it was responsible.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Moreover, these were not special spoons, but spoons brought from home and which they did not relinquish for anyone to tamper with. This is prima facie evidence for macro-psychokinesis. I'm not saying that it did occur, I simply don't know; but it is evidence.

I agree it is evidence. But what is it evidence of? I am not saying a paranormal event didn't take place. We don't know anywhere near enough about it. Until controls are put in place to remove non-paranormal possibilities, you can't rule out deception. I would imagine this will not get that far. I wish it would .

It must really suck for people with the gift of psychokinesis. They have one of the most incredible abilities in the world and the best they can do with it is bend spoons. Oh yeah, and get people to pay to watch them.

JPK

Interesting Ian

17th July 2004, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by JPK
Absolute nonsense. I suspect you're just repeating what other people have said without really thinking about it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your suspicions are wrong.

I'm pretty sure I've heard other Skeptics say the same thing. You mean they each independently come to this utterly preposterous conclusion?? Anyway, I believe I have adequately shown its stupidity. You have said nothing in this post to defend it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Let's consider Lucid dreams; you know, those dreams where you actually realise you're dreaming whilst in the dream state. Now 100 years ago they weren't supposed to exist according to orthodox thought.

If we had lived then would it have been reasonable to accept orthodox "wisdom"? I would suggest that if there had only ever been one anecdote from one individual that he had been aware that he was dreaming whilst in the dream state, and no-one else had ever reported a lucid dream, then the evidence for the reality of lucid dreaming would have been very weak. Now compare that situation to the reality. Most people have experienced lucid dreams. Are you seriously suggesting that the fact that the vast majority of us have experienced lucid dreams constitutes no more evidence for their reality than if only one person ever had reported a lucid dream?? Come now, let's not be silly. It would have been rational to reject orthodox opinion. In other words it would have been rational not to be a Skeptic regarding this phenomenon.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lucid dreaming? How did we get here? Most people have experienced lucid dreaming? Sorry I'm not aware of that.
Anacdotal evidence is very weak. The majority of the people once thought the Earth was the center of the universe. Didn't make it so.

What anecdotal evidence was there to make them think that we're at the centre of the Universe? Also, what do you mean in holding that we're not at the centre?

JPK

19th July 2004, 09:36 AM

Good morning Ian,

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I'm pretty sure I've heard other Skeptics say the same thing.

Perhaps you have heard this before. I gave it some thought.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

You mean they each independently come to this utterly preposterous conclusion??

[/B]

This you find hard to believe, yet individuals that experience something that they can't explain attributing it to the supernatural strengthens the evidence for paranormal events? I don't follow that.

Anyway, it would seem that we both said the same thing about the spoon bending party with one small exception.
The story: Two guys go to a spoon bending party. Claiming to be skeptical they, bring their own spoons. The spoons were bent. The partygoers can't explain how it happened.

From this, I think we all agree further investigation would be required to draw any conclusions. If I read you right, you felt that this adds to a growing body of evidence to support the supernatural. If in fact the spoons were bent by supernatural powers, you would be right. I think the fact that the witnesses saw something that they couldn't explain doesn't necessarily mean it is evidence of supernatural. If the cause was mundane then it is not supporting evidence of the supernatural at all.
By the same token, if it was trickery, self-deception, it is not evidence against supernatural events.

The story is only slightly different then people going to a magic show. Often the magician will ask for a personal object from the audience to add credibility to the stunt. To the person who lends the item, the trick has even more significance. The only difference in this story is the performer isn't claiming to use supernatural powers.

Anyway, I know this party story has moved to a new thread, but I wanted to get back to you. I was unable to post to the forum the past two days.

JPK

billydkid

19th July 2004, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
A nice intelligent response as per usual Billy :rolleyes:

This is what I'm always saying about Skeptics; it doesn't matter how compelling the evidence is, they still will not believe. How rational is that? :rolleyes:

What compelling evidence would you be referring to? If a solid, stainless steel spoon melted in my hand or even in the hand of a person sitting next to me - that might be evidence. If someone would display this ability in a controlled environment and the phenomenon was documented by unbiased and experienced observers - that would be evidence. Someone going onto an internet forum and claiming people bent spoons with their minds in their living is not evidence. Apparently, from the accounts, it doesn't require any special ability to do this - to bend metal with your mind (although why you should have to touch it at all escapes me) - so why isn't that old lady or any of the assortment of people who have demonstrated this ability running out and scooping up that million bucks? Certainly sounds like a safer bet than the lottery.

billydkid

19th July 2004, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
A nice intelligent response as per usual Billy :rolleyes:

This is what I'm always saying about Skeptics; it doesn't matter how compelling the evidence is, they still will not believe. How rational is that? :rolleyes:

What compelling evidence would you be referring to? If a solid, stainless steel spoon melted in my hand or even in the hand of a person sitting next to me - that might be evidence. If someone would display this ability in a controlled environment and the phenomenon was documented by unbiased and experienced observers - that would be evidence. Someone going onto an internet forum and claiming people bent spoons with their minds in their living room is not evidence. Apparently, from the accounts, it doesn't require any special ability to do this - to bend metal with your mind (although why you should have to touch it at all escapes me) - so why isn't that old lady or any of the assortment of people who have demonstrated this ability running out and scooping up that million bucks? Certainly sounds like a safer bet than the lottery.

billydkid

19th July 2004, 03:31 PM

Lucianarchy

20th July 2004, 02:38 AM

Originally posted by billydkid
so why isn't that old lady or any of the assortment of people who have demonstrated this ability running out and scooping up that million bucks? Certainly sounds like a safer bet than the lottery.

Since when has a biased 'challenge', owned by the challenger who will always have the final say, which is not arbitrated by an an independant arbiter, which is not published in a peer reviewed journal, a scientific test? Let alone a fair and unbiased one. :rolleyes:

If you are letting 'the challenge' decide things for you, then you need to take a reality check. It is for catching nuts, scams and for providing publicity. It is not a proper scientific test. You really need to understand that.

steenkh

20th July 2004, 03:07 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
If you are letting 'the challenge' decide things for you, then you need to take a reality check. It is for catching nuts, scams and for providing publicity. It is not a proper scientific test. You really need to understand that.
I do not recall that anyone has said that the JREF challenge is a scientific test. Nor should it be. Obviously, a scientific test would be more rigorous. But if the "old lady" has got hold of the million I would believe her chances of passing a scientific test would be that much higher.

Lucianarchy

20th July 2004, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by steenkh
I do not recall that anyone has said that the JREF challenge is a scientific test. Nor should it be. Obviously, a scientific test would be more rigorous. But if the "old lady" has got hold of the million I would believe her chances of passing a scientific test would be that much higher.

?? Aren't you skeptical of a 'challenge' where the challenge owner's $1m is at stake? The bottom line is the 'challenger' always has the final say on what is or isn't acceptable. There's your 'out'. It's a good publicity tool. I don't think it's of much use for anything else though.

CFLarsen

20th July 2004, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
?? Aren't you skeptical of a 'challenge' where the challenge owner's $1m is at stake? The bottom line is the 'challenger' always has the final say on what is or isn't acceptable. There's your 'out'. It's a good publicity tool. I don't think it's of much use for anything else though.

This is patently false.

1. The money is not Randi's. He cannot touch them, ever.
2. Randi does not have the final say on what is or isn't acceptable. I refer you to the terms of the challenge:

"All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant."
Source (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)

1. Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result. This is the primary and most important of these rules.

2. (...) We consult competent statisticians when an evaluation of the results, or experiment design, is required.

4. No part of the testing procedure may be changed in any way without the agreement of all parties concerned. JR may be present at some preliminary or formal tests, but will not interact with the materials used.
Source (http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html)

You are once again spreading your lies, Lucianarchy. I simply cannot understand why you think you can get away with it.

Lucianarchy

20th July 2004, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
This is patently false.

1. The money is not Randi's. He cannot touch them, ever.
2. Randi does not have the final say on what is or isn't acceptable. I refer you to the terms of the challenge:

Indeed.

[...]applicant and JREF will agree upon[...]

Whoah, there! Did you see that, Claus? What's to stop the challenger just saying "I don't agree."?! If you were responsible for a million bucks and thought you'd loose it, what would you say, Claus?

Don't bother. I'm psychic. ;)

drkitten

20th July 2004, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Indeed.

Whoah, there! Did you see that, Claus? What's to stop the challenger just saying "I don't agree."?

Florida's statute against frauds and misleading advertisements for one. If Randi tried this trick against someone with a lawyer who knows his business, that person would own the JREF in very short order....

flyboy217

20th July 2004, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by drkitten
Florida's statute against frauds and misleading advertisements for one. If Randi tried this trick against someone with a lawyer who knows his business, that person would own the JREF in very short order....

Not to get into the fray, but: how is a lawyer going to stop Randi from disagreeing with the protocol for testing a claim?

Lucianarchy

20th July 2004, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by drkitten
Florida's statute against frauds and misleading advertisements for one. If Randi tried this trick against someone with a lawyer who knows his business, that person would own the JREF in very short order....

Don't the applicants have to waive their right to take legal action? Besides, it is neatly by-passed by the application process, the challenger has no duty to even take them up in the first place. His challenge. His decision.

CFLarsen

20th July 2004, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Whoah, there! Did you see that, Claus? What's to stop the challenger just saying "I don't agree."?! If you were responsible for a million bucks and thought you'd loose it, what would you say, Claus?

Then I would do what Randi does: Negotiate until either agreeable terms had been found, or simply agreed to disagree - therefore, no test.

Surely, you don't expect Randi to accept a protocol that will not rule out trickery?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Don't bother. I'm psychic. ;)

No, you are not.

Originally posted by flyboy217
Not to get into the fray, but: how is a lawyer going to stop Randi from disagreeing with the protocol for testing a claim?

He can't. But then, of course, the lawyer would - if he was not a crook - take it public, exposing Randi. If the protocol was made public, and was fair, then Randi would suffer incredible damage. Strangely enough, we don't see a lot of that, do we?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Don't the applicants have to waive their right to take legal action? Besides, it is neatly by-passed by the application process, the challenger has no duty to even take them up in the first place. His challenge. His decision.

Wrong again. The legal waiver is only to ensure that JREF won't be sued for injury, accidents, etc.. It says so crystal clear in the terms:

7. When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons peripherally involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statutes. This applies to injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial, or professional, loss or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize.

It has no effect whatsoever on the prize. Not Randi's challenge. Not his decision.

Try again, Lucianarchy.

drkitten

20th July 2004, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Don't the applicants have to waive their right to take legal action?

Not if no agreement can be reached.

Besides, it is neatly by-passed by the application process, the challenger has no duty to even take them up in the first place. His challenge. His decision.

No. His public offering of the prize establishes a duty to respond (reasonably) to the applicants.

drkitten

20th July 2004, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by flyboy217
Not to get into the fray, but: how is a lawyer going to stop Randi from disagreeing with the protocol for testing a claim?

Legally? By claiming that Randi isn't acting in good faith in his disagreement, and that he's defrauding not only the claimant, but the donors to the JREF as well.

Politically, by generating a flood of negative publicity that the JREF can ill-afford.

Either way, Randi's defense is quite simple : point out the reasons for his disagreement with the proposed protocol. But "because I might lose the million" wouldn't be a reason, it would be a confession.

Lucianarchy

20th July 2004, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Then I would do what Randi does: Negotiate until either agreeable terms had been found, or simply agreed to disagree - therefore, no test.

And Bingo!, was his name-o.

Just don't "agree". Well, now, there's an 'out' if ever I saw one! Claus, I can imagine what it would be like if you were in charge of the show, lol!

See, that's why you need a completely independant arbiter to oversee the whole process, from application to protocol to test, all the way through. That ensures there is no bias on either side. It certainly reduces the bias inherently weighted on the side of the guy responsible for losing $1m!

CFLarsen

20th July 2004, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by drkitten
Either way, Randi's defense is quite simple : point out the reasons for his disagreement with the proposed protocol. But "because I might lose the million" wouldn't be a reason, it would be a confession.

Precisely.

Yet another complaint shot to pieces. Yet another excuse shown to be invalid.

Lucianarchy

20th July 2004, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Wrong again. The legal waiver is only to ensure that JREF won't be sued for injury, accidents, etc.. It says so crystal clear in the terms:

Indeed it does, except, you seemed to have stepped right over four little words there:

[...]damage of any kind[...]

Doop!

Lucianarchy

20th July 2004, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by drkitten
Legally? By claiming that Randi isn't acting in good faith in his disagreement, and that he's defrauding not only the claimant, but the donors to the JREF as well.

Politically, by generating a flood of negative publicity that the JREF can ill-afford.

Either way, Randi's defense is quite simple : point out the reasons for his disagreement with the proposed protocol. But "because I might lose the million" wouldn't be a reason, it would be a confession.

You could easily loose that in a claim over protocol security. 'She must have her face plastered in duct tape' , sounds a reasonable method of stopping cheating, but it is not a reasonable condition for a subject to produce a 'psi effect' under either. But if the challenger is sharp enough, it doesn't even need to get to that stage, just sling or bin the applications of those that look like they might have a chance right at the beginning.

drkitten

20th July 2004, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Just sling or bin the applications of those that look like they might have a chance right at the beginning.

These applications that are sent registered mail? Oh, good. Now that would be clear proof that JREF received it and is acting in bad faith in not even responding.

I also wonder how you could have missed these little words, the final sentence of rule #7 :

However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize.

Randi specifically does NOT require that applicants waive their right to sue over the awarding of the prize.

garys_2k

20th July 2004, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
You could easily loose that in a claim over protocol security. 'She must have her face plastered in duct tape' , sounds a reasonable method of stopping cheating, but it is not a reasonable condition for a subject to produce a 'psi effect' under either. But if the challenger is sharp enough, it doesn't even need to get to that stage, just sling or bin the applications of those that look like they might have a chance right at the beginning.
So why not try for it, formally, and tell us just what about the test protocol made it unacceptable? All this pointless speculation -- prove it.

CFLarsen

20th July 2004, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Indeed it does, except, you seemed to have stepped right over four little words there:

Doop!

But it specifically says:

However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize.

So, no "doop". Next?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
See, that's why you need a completely independant arbiter to oversee the whole process, from application to protocol to test, all the way through. That ensures there is no bias on either side. It certainly reduces the bias inherently weighted on the side of the guy responsible for losing $1m!

That "arbiter" is the free press, Lucianarchy. If JREF were to deny an applicant a fair try at the million dollars, JREF would go down in flames.

Can you point to any applicant who has unfairly been denied a test?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
You could easily loose that in a claim over protocol security. 'She must have her face plastered in duct tape' , sounds a reasonable method of stopping cheating, but it is not a reasonable condition for a subject to produce a 'psi effect' under either.

Isn't it? You are, of course, referring to Lulova, whom you have been defending with no success whatsoever.

Her nose bridge enabled her to do the old "see askew" trick. She couldn't "see" with something between her eyes and the text, so she must be blinded. Guess what? When this leak was stopped, she couldn't read anymore.

Where is Lulova today? Has she undergone scientific testing anywhere? No, she will disappear, simply because she was caught applying an age-old trick.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
But if the challenger is sharp enough, it doesn't even need to get to that stage, just sling or bin the applications of those that look like they might have a chance right at the beginning.

You are most welcome to provide us with names of those who have unfairly been denied a test.