Habitual irrational thinking.

How should we think about weird things?
Genaro
New Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 12:04 pm

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Genaro » Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:40 pm

"The document you have linked to is probably also a forgery. "

I'm sure I don't have to explain why "probably" doesn't feed the Bulldog, Matthew.

"It is supposedly a 1983 DIA document yet the "Approved for release mark" from 2007 claims the CIA approved its release. "

That's because the CIA did approve its release.

https://archive.org/details/ProjectSCANATECIARDP7900791R0001004800024

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23926
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Dec 14, 2016 11:51 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote: The document you have linked to is probably also a forgery.
Genaro wrote: I'm sure I don't have to explain why "probably" doesn't feed the Bulldog, Matthew.

http://www.remoteviewed.com/star-gate-documents/
https://archive.org/details/ProjectSCAN ... 1004800024

I think you really have to try harder.

Firstly, the document you have link to, is not the same forged document you previously linked to and is now missing any reference to the DIA, whereas the forged document you previously released was supposedly from the DIA. You may also have noticed that the forged paragraph saying "Remote viewing is a real phenomenon, and is not degraded by distance or shielding." is now gone. Funny about that.

Secondly, your previous forged document said that the scientists who performed the experiment were disclosed in another report, whereas that is now missing and no independent science team are mentioned.

Thirdly, your new document has humorous typos such as
" Approved For please 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP79-OO999400O4OOO5OOO2-4" where as the previous forged "DIA" version says "Approved for Release 2002/08/07 CIA-RDP96-007088R001000410001-6

Fourthly, the Central Intelligence Agency cannot declassify a Defence Intelligence Agency (Department of Defence) document under the US The National Security Act of 1947

......and finally because "Remote Viewing" is complete bull-shit and used by small time con-artists today to take money from fools. Please explain how the same remote views could "see" three different futures simultaneously?

The Old Magic Trick
"Billet reading, or the envelope trick, is a mentalist effect in which a performer pretends to use clairvoyance to read messages on folded papers or inside sealed envelopes. It is a widely performed "standard" of the mentalist craft since the middle of the 19th century. Billet is the French term for note or letter, referring to the rectangular shape of the paper".

Trump presidency.jpg
remote Clinton.jpg
Mark Rubio conspiracy.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1504
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Angel » Thu Dec 15, 2016 1:23 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:What argument do you think you are debating? That "Jesus" and "God" are real? What is your evidence?
Angel wrote:It's not about what's is worthy of debating. When you know HOW to debate ~ you can debate anything. U need to learn how to debate maturely.
In other words you are not going to debate your religious claims, at all, but keep spamming your religious propaganda about "God" and "Jesus" to intentionally irritate forum members.



Austin Harper wrote:Angel, can you try to formulate your ideas and then post a complete thought instead of posting multiple times in a row?
Angel wrote:You desire that I answer all of these posts with one answer? I was doing that before but it was too streight up cut and dry for most.
In other words you were not getting enough attention before, so now you spam your religious propaganda over many posts to get attention.


Ummm~ no
Dismissed
*~ •~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*
This is Babylon.
Who's version of Carrie do you want?
I can do them all. <~<3~<<
*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~*
Ya Whay lol

Genaro
New Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 12:04 pm

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Genaro » Sat Dec 17, 2016 12:03 pm

"the Central Intelligence Agency cannot declassify a Defence Intelligence Agency (Department of Defence) document under the US The National Security Act of 1947"

The entire program was transferred from the DIA to the CIA in 1995. Once that occurred it was up to the CIA whether or not to declassify.

"finally because "Remote Viewing" is complete bull-shit"

That is nothing more than a purely subjective statement, and is not an argument.

More importantly if remote viewing is "complete BS", that claim certainly does nothing to explain why the program went on for 23 years at the cost of tens of million$. Nor does it explain how Ingo Swann successfully had so many exact hits on Jupiter prior to Voyager confirming same.

Then there's this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-510762/Could-proof-theory-ALL-psychic.html

Excerpt:

"In 1995, the US Congress asked two independent scientists to assess whether the $20 million that the government had spent on psychic research had produced anything of value. And the conclusions proved to be somewhat unexpected.

Professor Jessica Utts, a statistician from the University of California, discovered that remote viewers were correct 34 per cent of the time, a figure way beyond what chance guessing would allow.

She says: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, you have to conclude that certain psychic phenomena, such as remote viewing, have been well established.

"The results are not due to chance or flaws in the experiments."

Of course, this doesn't wash with sceptical scientists.

Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, refuses to believe in remote viewing.

He says: "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do.

"If I said that there is a red car outside my house, you would probably believe me.

"But if I said that a UFO had just landed, you'd probably want a lot more evidence.

"Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionise the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence."
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

So a prominent skeptic (Professor Wiseman) agrees that the study of remote viewing is an area of science. Which completely obviates the skeptical epithet of "pseudoscience" with regard to remote viewing and Psi. In addition, he admits that when judged against prevailing scientific standards for evaluating evidence, remote viewing is proven.

But his argument that it requires more evidence is specious. Because the standard definition of what constitutes "evidence" and/or scientific methods completely misses the obvious fact that his previous assumptions about the fabric of reality were wrong.

The same applies to you, Matthew.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23926
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Dec 18, 2016 12:07 am

Genaro wrote:"the Central Intelligence Agency cannot declassify a Defence Intelligence Agency (Department of Defence) document under the US The National Security Act of 1947"
You have now linked to two different documents claiming it is the same DIA document. The entire paragraph from the earlier forged document from the remote viewing website, stating that remote viewing works has disappeared. The "CIA" released numbers have magically changed. Can you explain why?

Secondly, the original forged document you posted stated that the independent scientists who verified are detailed in another document. That too has disappeared in the second document you posted. Can you explain why?


Matthew Ellard wrote:"finally because "Remote Viewing" is complete bull-shit"
Genaro wrote:That is nothing more than a purely subjective statement, and is not an argument.
I gave clear direct evidence that remote viewing is a confidence trick and complete BS. You simply ignored that clear evidence.

Please explain how the same remote viewers were able to see three different future presidents simultaneously?
Trump presidency.jpg
remote Clinton.jpg
Mark Rubio conspiracy.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Nobrot
Poster
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Nobrot » Sun Dec 18, 2016 1:14 am

Genaro wrote:Some snippage for focus.

"finally because "Remote Viewing" is complete bull-shit"

More importantly if remote viewing is "complete BS", that claim certainly does nothing to explain why the program went on for 23 years at the cost of tens of million$. Nor does it explain how Ingo Swann successfully had so many exact hits on Jupiter prior to Voyager confirming same.


That the program was abandoned after 23 years and tens of millions of dollars does indeed suggest there was nothing to find. Ingo Swann you say? Ah yes I remember those days well. Tell me again where NASA confirmed 30,000 ft. mountain ranges on Jupiter, the gas planet.

Genaro wrote:Professor Jessica Utts, a statistician from the University of California, discovered that remote viewers were correct 34 per cent of the time, a figure way beyond what chance guessing would allow.

She says: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, you have to conclude that certain psychic phenomena, such as remote viewing, have been well established.


Well she would say that wouldn’t she.

Jessica Utts is a parapsychologist and statistics professor at the University of California, Irvine. She is known for her textbooks on statistics and her investigation into remote viewing.
Wiki

Genaro wrote:Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, refuses to believe in remote viewing.

He says: "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do.

So a prominent skeptic (Professor Wiseman) agrees that the study of remote viewing is an area of science. Which completely obviates the skeptical epithet of "pseudoscience" with regard to remote viewing and Psi. In addition, he admits that when judged against prevailing scientific standards for evaluating evidence, remote viewing is proven.

But his argument that it requires more evidence is specious. Because the standard definition of what constitutes "evidence" and/or scientific methods completely misses the obvious fact that his previous assumptions about the fabric of reality were wrong.


Richard Wiseman made a balls with that statement, so much so that he's now a jewel in the crown of woomeisters everywhere. But then it matters not, Wiseman's comments were on the Ganzfeld bollocks, not remote viewing. Do you understand they are not the same thing?

Genaro
New Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 12:04 pm

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Genaro » Sun Dec 18, 2016 12:56 pm

"I gave clear direct evidence that remote viewing is a confidence trick and complete BS. You simply ignored that clear evidence."

What you "gave" were examples where the results of remote viewing were inaccurate.

But what you haven't explained is this:

"remote viewers were correct 34 per cent of the time, a figure way beyond what chance guessing would allow."

"Tell me again where NASA confirmed 30,000 ft. mountain ranges on Jupiter, the gas planet."

So you're reverting to the old pseudo-skeptic mountain range deflection? Shoemaker-Levy 9 has now brought that into question. Or did I miss the NASA mission to Jupiter where a rover was deployed and confirmed there are no mountains on Jupiter?

Swann correctly viewed the Jovian rings, the hydrogen mantle, crystal bands reflecting radio probes, magnetic and electromagnetic Auroras, high infrared readings, and temperature inversions.

But there is nothing I can do for a committed Denialist. Because the security blanket trumps everything.

Perfect evidence of same:

"That the program was abandoned after 23 years and tens of millions of dollars does indeed suggest there was nothing to find."

Anyone with even a modicum of common sense knows that if there was actually "nothing to find" the various programs would not have gone on for 23 years. Likewise for anyone to claim to know that similar programs do not still exist.

Unless you or I hold a TS/SCI clearance there is no way that you or I could know.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26936
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Golden Spiral Trump
Location: Transcona

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Gord » Sun Dec 18, 2016 8:13 pm

Genaro wrote:But what you haven't explained is this:

"remote viewers were correct 34 per cent of the time, a figure way beyond what chance guessing would allow."

I can explain that: No, they weren't.

Declaring a remote viewer "correct" relies on guessing what they meant by their answers. Deciding whether something was a "hit" or not was a subjective choice on the part of the researcher, so the number of correct predictions made by the so-called remote viewers actually depended on the researcher's bias, and not on the "remote viewer's" alleged psychic abilities. That's why the experiments suffered from irreproducibility within the scientific community.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23926
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:15 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:"I gave clear direct evidence that remote viewing is a confidence trick and complete BS. You simply ignored that clear evidence."
Genaro wrote:What you "gave" were examples where the results of remote viewing were inaccurate.
No. I gave you clear evidence that Remote Viewing is complete bull-shit and known to be so by the "remote viewers".

How can the same "remote viewers" see three totally different futures and simultaneously publish three totally different accounts of the future and claim they are seeing the real future? In reality, the "remote viewers" are simply publishing three different fictional stories, where Clinton is President, Trump is President and Rubio is President, simply to sell more books to either Clinton fans, Trump fans or Rubio fans. It is a blatant con.

Nobrot wrote: Tell me again where NASA confirmed 30,000 ft. mountain ranges on Jupiter, the gas planet
Genaro wrote:So you're reverting to the old pseudo-skeptic mountain range deflection? Shoemaker-Levy 9 has now brought that into question. Or did I miss the NASA mission to Jupiter where a rover was deployed and confirmed there are no mountains on Jupiter?
Gas giants, such as Jupiter, do not have mountains....because they are gas giants.

"There are no mountains on Jupiter. As one of the solar system's gas giant planets, Jupiter has no solid surface or core. The planet is primarily comprised of hydrogen and helium gas."
https://www.reference.com/science/jupit ... 7f674eab46

Sooooo....what makes you a complete fool, is that you believe in "remote viewing" seeing Jupiter, yet are totally unaware that Jupiter is a gas giant. Didn't you see that hilarious problem coming straight at you?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23926
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:21 pm

Hey Genaro? Why waste time?

I want you to contact the world's best "remote viewers" and tell us where MH370, the missing airliner is.

Prove to us that "remote viewing" works. Don't bother posting here again until you get this information.
:lol:

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26936
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Golden Spiral Trump
Location: Transcona

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Gord » Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:10 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Gas giants, such as Jupiter, do not have mountains....because they are gas giants.

"There are no mountains on Jupiter. As one of the solar system's gas giant planets, Jupiter has no solid surface or core. The planet is primarily comprised of hydrogen and helium gas."
https://www.reference.com/science/jupit ... 7f674eab46

True. But to be fair, Jupiter could have a solid core, but it still would not be able to have mountains, and certainly not 10,000 foot high mountains. The extreme pressures should make the core essentially liquid:

http://www.universetoday.com/14470/does ... olid-core/

The answer to "does Jupiter have a solid core" is that the planet has a core that contains some rock and hydrogen metals. Scientists are not sure if deep within the planet there is a solid core or not. All that they can do is gather gravitational measurements, compare them with Earth’s, and make the best educated guesses possible based on those measurements. Those measurements make them think that the core is a thick, super hot soup.

NASA's Juno spacecraft is currently orbiting Jupiter gathering data to find, among other things, evidence about Jupiter's core. Unfortunately there have been engine problems and the data gathering is delayed while they keep Juno in a high orbit, trying to work out the problem: https://astronomynow.com/2016/10/18/eng ... -december/
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 15145
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby scrmbldggs » Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:50 am


User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1504
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Angel » Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:15 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:Hey Genaro? Why waste time?

I want you to contact the world's best "remote viewers" and tell us where MH370, the missing airliner is.

Prove to us that "remote viewing" works. Don't bother posting here again until you get this information.
:lol:


Since it is written that blood calls
to blood~ it works the same way a
witches spell works . You need the person
viewing to give you some blood ~ nail
clippings ~ hair etc... to take to the
place of viewing. The viewer then goes
to sleep. The people at the site of viewing
call her in their minds (or out loud? )
The viewer then travels to the site of
viewing.

Ps ~ that's why you're not worth spit ~
I don't want to waste my time following you.
Hahaha
That would explain the hounds
from hell. Blood hounds drool ~
leaving it to be picked up by foxes.
The hounds follow the beast.
Fox is 666
Let sleeping dogs lay.
They may be tracking somethings
or someone. Cats rub up against
you to leave the scent. They live
through you. ;-)
*~ •~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*
This is Babylon.
Who's version of Carrie do you want?
I can do them all. <~<3~<<
*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~*
Ya Whay lol

Genaro
New Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 12:04 pm

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Genaro » Mon Dec 19, 2016 9:28 pm

"Deciding whether something was a "hit" or not was a subjective choice on the part of the researcher, so the number of correct predictions made by the so-called remote viewers actually depended on the researcher's bias, and not on the "remote viewer's" alleged psychic abilities."

The researcher had nothing to do with determining correct hits. The DIA objectively determined correct hits based on validation.

So there ain't no "subjective" Coon up that tree, Gord.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23926
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:18 pm

Genaro wrote:The researcher had nothing to do with determining correct hits. The DIA objectively determined correct hits based on validation. So there ain't no "subjective" Coon up that tree, Gord.
Here is an exact example of how the remote viewing "magic trick" scam works in two short videos hosted by Michael Shermer.

In addition to this obvious scam there is the further obvious scam when the "remote viewers" publish three totally different future scenarios to hedge their bets.(cold reading 101). I see Genaro, that you are pretending to ignore this evidence.

And finally, the elephant in the room, is that not one of your "remote viewers" can tell us where flight MH370 is. That, your remote viewers cannot actually do the main thing you claim they were able to do, for the DIA, simply places "remote viewing" in the more comical aspects of paranormal claims.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY4MTKa2ldI

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23926
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:30 pm

Angel wrote:Since it is written that blood calls to blood~ it works the same way a witches spell works .
Witches' spells are from fairy tales and "remote viewers" are not bloodhounds but con artists.


Angel wrote: You need the person viewing to give you some blood ~ nail clippings ~ hair etc... to take to the place of viewing. The viewer then goes to sleep. The people at the site of viewing call her in their minds (or out loud? ) The viewer then travels to the site of viewing.
Genaro, will be thrilled with your scientific explanation about "remote viewing" Genaro? Do you agree with Angel's description of how remote viewing works? :lol:

Angel wrote: that's why you're not worth spit ~ I don't want to waste my time following you. Hahaha That would explain the hounds from hell. Blood hounds drool leaving it to be picked up by foxes. The hounds follow the beast. Fox is 666 Let sleeping dogs lay. They may be tracking somethings or someone. Cats rub up against you to leave the scent. They live through you.
This is simply another of Angel's schizophrenic episodes bursting out. It isn't meant to make any sense. Most member here put Angel on ignore until she goes back onto her medication. :lol:

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1504
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Angel » Mon Dec 19, 2016 11:26 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Angel wrote:Since it is written that blood calls to blood~ it works the same way a witches spell works .
Witches' spells are from fairy tales and "remote viewers" are not bloodhounds but con artists.


Angel wrote: You need the person viewing to give you some blood ~ nail clippings ~ hair etc... to take to the place of viewing. The viewer then goes to sleep. The people at the site of viewing call her in their minds (or out loud? ) The viewer then travels to the site of viewing.
Genaro, will be thrilled with your scientific explanation about "remote viewing" Genaro? Do you agree with Angel's description of how remote viewing works? :lol:

Angel wrote: that's why you're not worth spit ~ I don't want to waste my time following you. Hahaha That would explain the hounds from hell. Blood hounds drool leaving it to be picked up by foxes. The hounds follow the beast. Fox is 666 Let sleeping dogs lay. They may be tracking somethings or someone. Cats rub up against you to leave the scent. They live through you.
This is simply another of Angel's schizophrenic episodes bursting out. It isn't meant to make any sense. Most member here put Angel on ignore until she goes back onto her medication. :lol:


So I should think like you?
Another irrational thinker~
sorry about your life choices.
Please do not take it out on me.
Thanx :-)
*~ •~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*
This is Babylon.
Who's version of Carrie do you want?
I can do them all. <~<3~<<
*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~*
Ya Whay lol

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23926
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Dec 19, 2016 11:29 pm

Angel wrote: So I should think like you?
You can't. You don't have the brains to do so. Your schizophrenic incoherent posts aren't helping you either.

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1504
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Angel » Mon Dec 19, 2016 11:56 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Genaro wrote:The researcher had nothing to do with determining correct hits. The DIA objectively determined correct hits based on validation. So there ain't no "subjective" Coon up that tree, Gord.
Here is an exact example of how the remote viewing "magic trick" scam works in two short videos hosted by Michael Shermer.

In addition to this obvious scam there is the further obvious scam when the "remote viewers" publish three totally different future scenarios to hedge their bets.(cold reading 101). I see Genaro, that you are pretending to ignore this evidence.

And finally, the elephant in the room, is that not one of your "remote viewers" can tell us where flight MH370 is. That, your remote viewers cannot actually do the main thing you claim they were able to do, for the DIA, simply places "remote viewing" in the more comical aspects of paranormal claims.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY4MTKa2ldI



A poor excuse for a test at best.
Two people out of 7 billion are
sad stats.
*~ •~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*
This is Babylon.
Who's version of Carrie do you want?
I can do them all. <~<3~<<
*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~*
Ya Whay lol

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26936
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Golden Spiral Trump
Location: Transcona

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Gord » Tue Dec 20, 2016 12:46 am

Angel wrote:Let sleeping dogs lay.

lie

Genaro wrote:"Deciding whether something was a "hit" or not was a subjective choice on the part of the researcher, so the number of correct predictions made by the so-called remote viewers actually depended on the researcher's bias, and not on the "remote viewer's" alleged psychic abilities."

The researcher had nothing to do with determining correct hits. The DIA objectively determined correct hits based on validation.

No, they subjectively determined what was a correct hit based on whether or not they felt it was. And when someone decides whether or not something is correct by interpreting collected data, they become the researcher to whom I'm referring.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23926
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Dec 20, 2016 1:02 am

Gord wrote: No, they subjectively determined what was a correct hit based on whether or not they felt it was. And when someone decides whether or not something is correct by interpreting collected data, they become the researcher to whom I'm referring.


Exactly. "Remote viewing" is the same trick as Mr Squiggle, the children's TV show. Children send in drawings of random shapes. Mr Squiggle then says "Yes I can see the car" and adds more lines to make the drawing look like a car. Viola! it was always a drawing of a car. Mr Squiggle is a "remote viewing" researcher.
Mr Squiggle.jpg


Mr Squiggle now works for the Farsight Institute Children's Show, :lol:
Mr Squiggle 1jpg.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1504
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Angel » Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:04 pm

Gord wrote:
Angel wrote:Let sleeping dogs lay.

lie

Honestly he lay there.
He wouldn't tell a lie.
He was being kind to kitty.
They were chasing rainbows
in the sky. ;-)

Genaro wrote:"Deciding whether something was a "hit" or not was a subjective choice on the part of the researcher, so the number of correct predictions made by the so-called remote viewers actually depended on the researcher's bias, and not on the "remote viewer's" alleged psychic abilities."

The researcher had nothing to do with determining correct hits. The DIA objectively determined correct hits based on validation.

No, they subjectively determined what was a correct hit based on whether or not they felt it was. And when someone decides whether or not something is correct by interpreting collected data, they become the researcher to whom I'm referring.


Remote viewers cannot predict.
Only view. I was just thinking~
The M.S. Test with the pic in the
envelope ~ won't work. There is no
light in the envalope to see with nor
a viewer to use for remote viewing. Lol
Viewers and psychics are not the same.
*~ •~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*
This is Babylon.
Who's version of Carrie do you want?
I can do them all. <~<3~<<
*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~*
Ya Whay lol

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26936
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Golden Spiral Trump
Location: Transcona

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Gord » Tue Dec 20, 2016 3:16 pm

Angel wrote:
Gord wrote:
Angel wrote:Let sleeping dogs lay.

lie

Honestly he lay there.
He wouldn't tell a lie.
He was being kind to kitty.
They were chasing rainbows
in the sky. ;-)

Genaro wrote:"Deciding whether something was a "hit" or not was a subjective choice on the part of the researcher, so the number of correct predictions made by the so-called remote viewers actually depended on the researcher's bias, and not on the "remote viewer's" alleged psychic abilities."

The researcher had nothing to do with determining correct hits. The DIA objectively determined correct hits based on validation.

No, they subjectively determined what was a correct hit based on whether or not they felt it was. And when someone decides whether or not something is correct by interpreting collected data, they become the researcher to whom I'm referring.

Remote viewers cannot predict.

Actually, that's all they can do. Just like anyone else: Try to guess what will be a "hit" and what won't. And if that doesn't work, they fake it -- like Matthew Ellard's example, where they put together three different answers so they can pull out the "correct" one and claim they got it right.

Viewers and psychics are not the same.

Sure they are: Fake.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23926
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:26 pm

Angel wrote: Remote viewers cannot predict. Only view.
Gorgeous? Angel is calling you a liar. Angel says the books you posted where remote viewers predict the future are just a pack of lies.

What do you say to Angel as your rebuttal Gorgeous?
:lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23926
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:32 pm

Angel wrote: The (Michael Shermer) Test with the pic in the envelope ~ won't work. There is no light in the envalope (sic) to see with nor a viewer to use for remote viewing.
You really are a total idiot Angel. The remote viewers are the people who put the photo in the envelope to prove "remote viewing" works. Michael Shermer simply copies their experiment by placing an unknown picture in the envelope and thus the "remote viewer supervisor" can't cheat.

You have just claimed ( correctly) that all those "remote viewers" were cheating.
:lol:

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1504
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Angel » Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:46 am

Gord wrote:
Angel wrote:
Gord wrote:
Angel wrote:Let sleeping dogs lay.

lie

Honestly he lay there.
He wouldn't tell a lie.
He was being kind to kitty.
They were chasing rainbows
in the sky. ;-)

Genaro wrote:"Deciding whether something was a "hit" or not was a subjective choice on the part of the researcher, so the number of correct predictions made by the so-called remote viewers actually depended on the researcher's bias, and not on the "remote viewer's" alleged psychic abilities."

The researcher had nothing to do with determining correct hits. The DIA objectively determined correct hits based on validation.

No, they subjectively determined what was a correct hit based on whether or not they felt it was. And when someone decides whether or not something is correct by interpreting collected data, they become the researcher to whom I'm referring.

Remote viewers cannot predict.

Actually, that's all they can do. Just like anyone else: Try to guess what will be a "hit" and what won't. And if that doesn't work, they fake it -- like Matthew Ellard's example, where they put together three different answers so they can pull out the "correct" one and claim they got it right.

Viewers and psychics are not the same.

Sure they are: Fake.


You're fake .

Apples & any other fruit.
A viewer sees through the eyes of others
in order to view what is already there.
A psychic knows something before it is
already there. Dunnnnhhhhhh......
*~ •~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*
This is Babylon.
Who's version of Carrie do you want?
I can do them all. <~<3~<<
*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~*
Ya Whay lol

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1504
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Angel » Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:50 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Angel wrote: The (Michael Shermer) Test with the pic in the envelope ~ won't work. There is no light in the envalope (sic) to see with nor a viewer to use for remote viewing.
You really are a total idiot Angel. The remote viewers are the people who put the photo in the envelope to prove "remote viewing" works. Michael Shermer simply copies their experiment by placing an unknown picture in the envelope and thus the "remote viewer supervisor" can't cheat.

You have just claimed ( correctly) that all those "remote viewers" were cheating.
:lol:


And while he stands there thinking of anything
other than the pic.... He can't be trusted ~
he's running the test. Hahaha
*~ •~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*
This is Babylon.
Who's version of Carrie do you want?
I can do them all. <~<3~<<
*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~*
Ya Whay lol

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1504
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Angel » Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:54 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Angel wrote: Remote viewers cannot predict. Only view.
Gorgeous? Angel is calling you a liar. Angel says the books you posted where remote viewers predict the future are just a pack of lies.

What do you say to Angel as your rebuttal Gorgeous?
:lol:


Oooo I should correct my words so
you cannot use them to start {!#%@}?!

It's obvious that's not what was intended.
I was (u figure out the right word to go here
u genies ) they are not the same.
*~ •~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*
This is Babylon.
Who's version of Carrie do you want?
I can do them all. <~<3~<<
*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~*
Ya Whay lol

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26936
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Golden Spiral Trump
Location: Transcona

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Gord » Wed Dec 21, 2016 3:50 pm

Angel wrote:You're fake.

I know you are but what am I. :beee:

A viewer sees through the eyes of others
in order to view what is already there.
A psychic knows something before it is
already there. Dunnnnhhhhhh......

Neither does either, they're both fake. Derp!
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26936
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Golden Spiral Trump
Location: Transcona

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Gord » Wed Dec 21, 2016 3:55 pm

Angel wrote:I was (u figure out the right word to go here
u genies ) they are not the same.

(the genies think the right word is "tergiversating")
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23926
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Dec 21, 2016 11:40 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:You have just claimed ( correctly) that all those "remote viewers" were cheating. [/color] :lol:
Angel wrote: And while he (Michael Shermer) stands there thinking of anything other than the pic.... He can't be trusted ~ he's running the test.
You really are an idiot. The "remote viewers" are running the experiment. They claimed they could see the photo in the envelope. All Michael Shermer did was put his photo in the envelope and not give any hints what that photo was. Not one of the remote viewers could guess what the photo was.

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1605
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby digress » Thu Dec 22, 2016 4:58 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:The latest New Scientist has an article on our unconscious minds. In a paragraph on automatic habits (such as driving a car without thinking about it), the article mentioned that patterns of thought can also become habitual, so that people will always draw the same conclusions, due to not actually putting the effort into wondering if things might be different.


What a coincidence. i was just talking to my unconscious mind the other day about that.
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg

User avatar
gorgeous
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3274
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby gorgeous » Thu Dec 22, 2016 1:45 pm

Shermer is out to prove a negative...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23926
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Dec 22, 2016 11:03 pm

gorgeous wrote:Shermer is out to prove a negative...
No Gorgeous. Michael Shermer stopped the remote viewers from cheating, by putting his own photo in the envelope and not a photo already known to the remote viewers.

Lets us all laugh at you some more. Please explain how Michael Shermer was proving a negative in your own words
:lol:

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1504
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Angel » Tue Dec 27, 2016 10:12 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:You have just claimed ( correctly) that all those "remote viewers" were cheating. [/color] :lol:
Angel wrote: And while he (Michael Shermer) stands there thinking of anything other than the pic.... He can't be trusted ~ he's running the test.
You really are an idiot. The "remote viewers" are running the experiment. They claimed they could see the photo in the envelope. All Michael Shermer did was put his photo in the envelope and not give any hints what that photo was. Not one of the remote viewers could guess what the photo was.


Oh so they created the test?
The Mr. S. Enables them to make
fools of themselves ? 0.o*
Then he makes himself rich and
famous for enabling fools? Wow.
He's talented.
*~ •~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*
This is Babylon.
Who's version of Carrie do you want?
I can do them all. <~<3~<<
*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~*
Ya Whay lol

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23926
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Dec 27, 2016 9:38 pm

Angel wrote:Oh so they created the test?
Yes. Perhaps you should actually watch the video being discussed rather than posting comments on a video you haven't actually watched.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7238
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Poodle » Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:21 pm

Deleted - I missed a page.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 15145
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby scrmbldggs » Wed Dec 28, 2016 1:10 am

A page? Tomes. You missed tomes! And we missed you! :this:

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1504
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: Habitual irrational thinking.

Postby Angel » Mon Jan 02, 2017 12:10 pm

Habitual & irational as it may seem ~
I still believe people can change.
*~ •~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*
This is Babylon.
Who's version of Carrie do you want?
I can do them all. <~<3~<<
*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~•~*~*
Ya Whay lol


Return to “Skepticism and Critical Thinking”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests