PsiPog.net

View topic - joe t's video

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Skepticism » joe t's video

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

joe t's video

Author

Message

Posted on Sun Jun 18, 2006 3:48 pm

bladeslinger

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 1337

Well I read it all and really enjoyed JoeT's debating skills and how he really out do someone with perfect grammer and be polite Smile

. Kief, If you really want to show us what simple fools we are, do extensive research on how psychokinesis is absolutely impossible, how every other psionic skill is absolutely impossible and then you will have shattered a whole community...not many can do that but I'm sure with all those links JoeT politely gave you, you should be able to put us in our place Wink

Posted on Sun Jun 18, 2006 4:01 pm

Peebrain

Site Admin
Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 716

It's kind of hard to be convinced that something is impossible when I've witnessed it with my own eyes, and done it myself. I've seen Joe do things that can't be explained by conventional means. Not in a video... in a live online demonstration with a geiger counter. I always just think how funny it is when people argue so much about how something is impossible. Actually, I kind of like it... I remember talking to this girl who told me out of body experiences were impossible. She was going on and on about how it's silly, and that no one can experience something like that, and authors of books are liars, and this and that. Yet, I've had 80+ OBEs.

It's just funny to see someone argue until they turn purple about something they have no clue about. This is another reason why PsiPog is focused on personal experience. Reality determines what is and is not possible - not forum posts or research papers. Don't get me wrong - proper research and modern science is amazing. But when it starts saying things like "You can't do that!" and I do, I just find that really funny Twisted Evil

.

~Sean

Posted on Sun Jun 18, 2006 4:12 pm

psi_manipulator_3000

Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 1274

hehe, that's the first time I've seen Peebrain use the evil smily before.
I agree with that. I'm not gonna change my believes about something that I know from experience is real because one person thinks so. Also, what I really don't get is why making videos that show pyschic feats done another way disproves that pk is real. That would be like this, for example:

One person has never seen a cd player before and they can play music on their computer, then another person who has seen a cd player before plays music on it in a video. The first person says well, I can play music on my computer so that video is a fake and cd players don't exist.

Sorry for the bad example, it's 10:10 right now. My brain is dead.

Posted on Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:56 pm

Serge

Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 31

Joe, your ranting skills are amazing. You should go to those Monday Night debates. I need some help in PK by the way Sad

and Psi Balls.

Kief, what is the reason you think this is all a bunch of fluff? Do you have a specific reason? Is it in your religious beliefs that Psychokinesis is immoral/forbidden?

Explain yourself.

Posted on Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:27 pm

bladeslinger

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 1337

Serge wrote:

Joe, your ranting skills are amazing. You should go to those Monday Night debates. I need some help in PK by the way Sad

He just enjoys making people mad like a small child instead of being a responsible, open minded individual. So far he has helped to make a bad name for skeptics and discourage people with questions that are just learning Confused

Posted on Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:10 am

keys

Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 42

Wow, I think I just lost ssome serious IQ points from reading Kief's argument. That wasn't even amusing, it was just..... stupid. I mean... he's even disproving his own argument if you read it. If Kief is causing so much trouble, why not just ban him? He's insulting, rude, and unintelligent. Everytime I go to make a post it says "Be Intelligent" above where I am posting. He's obviously not going to get any information through him. I deal with people like this on occasion. When you're angered... it just gives him more reason to fight back. Ignore him. Pass him off. Say nothing. Let his stupid remarks just slide off your shoulder. It'll save you some stress.

And I'll say this, I haven't tried PK... mostly just simple constucts and stuff. But that is real, and amazing. Who would have thought it would have thought that someone across the country that I hardly know would be able to pick out the exact object I "sent" through a construct? Give it a spin, amuse me. I recall a time when everyone thought the rock they lived on was flat, and refused to believe anything else. But what do you know? Turns out it's a lumpy orb. Take some advice Kief. Have an open mind.

Posted on Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:27 am

bladeslinger

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 1337

I salute you Keys Smile

Posted on Wed Jun 21, 2006 1:00 am

windguardian

Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 18

Is Gravity real to you? We all know things will always fall to the ground, and undoubtedly scientists have proven this phenomenon as genuine long ago (thanks to the Newton guy).

Yet ironically, despite all humanities advancement in modern physics and science the scientists themselves are still not sure what causes gravity or why exactly things fall due to gravity.

Quote from wikipedia- "Gravity was rather poorly understood until Isaac Newton formulated his law of gravitation in the 17th century. Newton's theory is still widely used for many practical purposes, though for more advanced work it has been supplanted by Einstein's general relativity. While a great deal is now known about the properties of gravity, the ultimate cause of the gravitational force remains an open question and gravity remains an important topic of scientific research."

This, I think is what the psionics phenomena is facing now, they know it happens, but they just can't explain it. And much is yet to be discovered about it. Even gravity, a phenomena so common even a baby aknowledges it's existence and yet after centuries of research and discovery people still don't have a clue about it's inner workings. So, in my opinion, to be skeptical about psionics is same as being skeptical about gravity. Anyway, much is yet to be learned about the nature and the world.

Posted on Wed Jun 21, 2006 8:27 am

maxus

Joined: 13 Jun 2006
Posts: 851

I have a friend called nic, he was a bit like Kief, a total skeptic, i showed him psiwheel while he was over one day, he dismissed it as 'me blowing on it', but he could obviously see i was holding my breathe, he continued to hold my nose just to make sure i wasnt breathing, he still wasnt convinced, so then i put a glass over the psiwheel and got it spinning (yes im finally past the mental block:D) and he still wasnt convinced, anyway, cut a long story short, i convinced him to try the psiwheel, now hes moving toothpicks, books, psiwheel under glasses and he can make visible psiballs, hes the fastest learner ive eve seen, he was doing all of that in a week. So if Kief actually pulled a finger out of his ass and tried Tk, im sure he'd get somewhere.

Posted on Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:53 pm

Kief

Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 120

?I must say, I was expecting more. I thought that you would put up a good debate however this turned out to be nothing more than a waste of my time. If you choose to respond, please put more of an effort to this debate.?

I actually wonder if I am wasting my time. We'll see.

?If you honestly do not believe that your attitude towards psionics isn't horrible, then you my friend are stupid. I would like you to reread your entire response as well as your previous posts and tell me that you haven?t been disrespectful.?

Psionics is no more real than chi, sorcery, magick, necromancy, divination, prayer, etc., etc.

You may as well call psi magick or chi.

A phenomena may occur that indeed is paranormal, but to jump to a conclusion and call it magick, god, jesus, allah, psi, witchcraft, etc., is not only close minded but unscientific.

?Let me make one thing very clear, I have nothing to prove to you.?

If you make a claim, especially one that involves saying you are manipulating unproven life/energy forces that permeate all of reality, you should probably back it up, lest you look exactly as you do right now.

?I don't frankly give a shit what you think.?

Well isn?t that nice.

?If you wish to know something is real then put in the time that other members have and find out for yourself.?

I am not opposed to paranormal things, but to label them psionic, or the magic tricks people do on here as psionic, then I would merely be relegating myself to delusion.

?If you do not wish to even try learning or practicing why are you here??

I never made claims to what sorts of paranormal things I can do or have witnessed. I wouldn?t want to bother people with such anecdotal accounts, because they are not evidence of anything. I have had discussions with more reasonable people about these things in other threads and it was very nice because they do not regurgitate the same clich? sentences.

?Do you have little social life that arguing our statements is something to fill in the gap? I seriously think you need to rethink your life. Perhaps get a girlfriend or a new hobby.?

I do not even post on this forum much. Again this is a pointless ad hom. But I do post when I have some free time from work, friends, girls, school, band, movies, and everything else I do. As paranormal research is a ?hobby? of sorts, I delve into all aspects and try to find other individuals who are reasonable and credible. While I have to wade through unpleasant people, I do manage to find a few good people out there.

?Like I said, I was expecting a lot more. However, you have once again let me down. So, I am not sorry I'm quite pissed. You're just another kid with an argument. I've been talking to people like you for years. You're no different from the rest.?

Sure thing. Why don?t you take all your paranormal powers down to the casino and make some cash?

I know I do?

?I don't recall anyone challenging you. Perhaps you would like to backup your statements by logs.?

Do you read every thread? Go look for them, they are on a site you moderate for crying out loud.

?Yes, members of a community that I help manage. If you wish to spread your ridiculous opinions based on psionics in this community you're going to run into me.?

More pointless, off topic ad homs.

?You see, that is where you're wrong. Psychokinesis (PK) has been tested for many years and there has been documented proof that something abnormal is occurring.?

So where is the evidence for this? Why isn?t it found in any journal, or textbook? Why isn?t it talked about in any science magazines?

?Whether it's an object moving or a light bulb shutting off.?

The documented cases have shown to be magic tricks or otherwise not caused by paranormal phenomena.

?I strongly recommend that you do some research based on Russian scientific testing with supernatural abilities. There has been documented proof that Psychokinesis (PK) is real and the results show.?

The testing to come out of Russia during the cold war is not very good proof of anything. Again a lot of misinformation was passed around during the cold war and both countries have since abandonded all such so called psi-ops programs.

?Now, you may be asking yourself "If they know it works, why isn't it proven by scientific standards?" That is because if science cannot find out why it is working, then it can not be actually happening.?

That is entirely untrue.

We don?t know why gravity works, but we know it is an attractive force exerted on objects.

We don?t know why particles are able to undergo something called ?tunneling?, but we know it happens.

We may not know the reason behind something, but that does not stop us from making empirical observations, especially to try and figure the phenomena out.

Like for instance, it was observed for years that species were evolving, but just how was unknown. More and more observations were made and we saw that sexual and natural selection were playing dominant roles. Then DNA was discovered and we had further evidence to explain just how organisms were evolving.

?We know it works, we just don't know how. Do some research, please. You're embarrassing yourself.?

I have done the research. You have yet to come up with anything that supports your claims of psionics or of documented paranormal incidents being witnessed in a lab or in nature.

Again, ?we know it works? is a clich? statement made broadly by members of this site who just can?t prove any of their claims and who are closed off to any idea that doesn?t conform to their imagination.

?Obviously you haven't. If you had, you might have showed some intelligence and would have put up a better argument other than using the words "Blah, blah, blah".?

I have done the research. But there is simply no point to respond to the rhetorical nonsense you present. You have no argument and no evidence, and again you have had an opportunity to present such and have failed.

?Once again your lack of intelligence is breath taking. Like I've stated earlier, please do some actual research. You obviously have absolutely no idea what your talking about. You're making false statements, please stop.?

Again you relegate to ad homs and an pseudo argument that is composed of nothing but ?OBVIOUSLY you have not done research because you do not agree with me?. Pffffft. That?s like a christian telling me I haven?t researched the bible and christian mythology, repeatedly claiming that jesus did rise from the dead.

?I can certainly understand were you're coming from. I myself am skeptical with many stories from the bible or any supernatural early experience that has been documented. However, you're interpreting my statements incorrectly. My point to my statements above were to show you that psychokinesis has been documented in the past.?

What is told in any story is not a documentation. Was jesus walking on water? Did moses part the red sea? I can lead you to many sites with online text versions of ancient grimores written by sorcerers and magicians detailing magickal acts, many on par with psychokinesis.
Are they real accounts?

?We didn't watch a television show and start a community based on psychic abilities due to the fact that it's only a cool idea.?

You change your language around when you want to make a better point. Psychic does not equal psionic. So called psychic phenomena is not necessarily real either, but psychic phenomena is a what, not a how. Psychic abilities are cool, but they are not psionic or work on/with psionic energy, nor perhaps any form of known or unknown energy.

?This was certainly a giggle. He could shape shift into a bat, not a wolf. I'm not even a fan of Dracula type movies and even I know that. Do some research. You're embarrassing yourself once again?

Original vampire stories have vampires, like Dracula, being able to have multiple forms, such as a wolf, bat, mist, even being able to change his appearance into the visage of other people.

Do some research, since claiming I?m embarrassing myself when you are in fact doing that very thing, does not aid with your credibility.

?Like I've stated earlier, science cannot confirm that psychokinesis is real due to the fact that science cannot (as of now) find out how it's working.?

And like I said above that is entirely untrue.

Empirical observations do not require a how in order to be documented, reviewed, published, and repeated. Seeing and knowing a phenomena is happening and repeatedly testing it is the process that leads to the how.

?Scientific testing has proven that psychokinesis works, we just can't find out how and that is why it is still in the mystery book.?

And the evidence for your claim is in which scientific journal? Please give a decent citation that I can readily look up in jstor or pubmed, or similar scientific database.

?J.B. Rhine was a scientist. He was a man who followed the same scientific protocols as you claim to. He was a very intelligent man who spent many years dedicated to studying the powers of the human mind.?

Yes he was a scientist. He was also fooled by magicians for quite some time. Perhaps you should go look up the incidents, but the people at Rhine I know would not like to outwardly present such information. Because, of course, it looks bad for them.

?Please do not neglect that, he was a scientist and he worked with other scientist as well. Once again I must ask you do some research before attempting to state anything.?

Apparently again you are the one who has not done the research. I know he was a scientist, he did some good research too, but none of it was ever related to the paranormal or psionics. His resarch in paranormal phenemena do not support any claim that paranormal events happen. His mistakes do help other researchers to not repeat those mistakes though.

?The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) is certainly a creditable organization.?

I never said they were not.

?They have done some amazing research based on psychic abilities.?

That is not necessarily true.

?However, you're once again wrong about their involvement wish psychokinesis. PEAR has solid research/testing based on psychokinesis. Since you're obviously unable to do your own research, allow me to offer you a link:
http://skepdic.com/pear.html.?

Again you have appparently not done the research, and didn?t even read all the contents from a link you yourself provide. I had explained problems with RNG?s and their findings.

From http://skepdic.com/pear.html :

?C.E.M. Hansel, however, claims that regarding all the studies done after 1969 and before 1987 that attempted to replicate Schmidt?s work: ?The main fact that emerges from this data is that 71 experiments gave a result supporting Schmidt?s findings and 261 experiments failed to do so? (Hansel 1989: 185).?

Keep reading and PEAR?s studies are further found to be statistically insignificant, and PEAR?s findings could also not be replicated.

Links from skeptic?s dictionary that provide some articles and abstracts on work done in psychokinesis an abstract and the evidence related to it, and I thought this was an interesting citation:
http://www.imprint.co.uk/books/psi.html#Jeffers

If one keeps reading the skeptic's dictionary link you provided, it keeps going downhill for PEAR and other psychokinetic research.

?That is your opinion.?

No, it?s what's been documented.

Did you even read the very site you posted to me?

?However, there has been many documented testing based on PK as well as other psionic related abilities that shows solid proof that PK as well as other abilities are real.?

You are like everyone else, repeating this like a parrot.

You should see also

http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/PEARCritique.htm

http://www.csicop.org/si/9603/claims.html

?Try to remember that our government found out that the Soviet were able to effectively gain information about anything regardless of space, time or shielding using remote viewing. Please don't neglect that with Soviet knowledge, we began to use psychic abilities to benefit our government.?

Um?.

Yea Ok. I won't even begin with this one. Smile

?All arguments aside, you are a member of this community and therefore I am obligated to help you with psionics as well as research. If you're interested in learning more about Soviet testing with psychic abilities, please visit your local book store and look for Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain by Sheila Ostrander and Lynn Shroeder. It's an absolutely great book. I recommend it for further study.?

I am not sure that book is so great as you present. Much of what it talks about is either silly or has been debunked (kirlian photography, ufos, etc).
http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Wolf_Messing is also a good read on the book.

None of what that book claims is really evidenced.

?Please do not insult scientist. You're making them sound like little children surrounding a magic trick like school kids at a birthday party.?

In the black and white videos it pretty much looks that way.

?You give them no credit, they were scientist that studied psychokinesis. I'm sure they took the necessary precautions before allowing some random woman to perform such an event as moving matter using only the mind on camera.?

That is not correct. They made many, many mistakes, as have subsequent researchers as we have seen.

?The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) have tested psychokinesis using more than one method of testing. In some testing situations, they would use a participant and try to move an object using nothing but the mind then run more test using generators. Now, although they do not spend as much time devoted to psychokinesis, that does not mean that previous testing are non-creditable. PEAR has planned more psychokinesis testing for the future. Please visit their home page at http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/ for further information.?

None of PEAR?s findings have been backed up. No participant has been shown to be able to perform psychokinesis on an object and such results are not found in any journal.

?Once again you're discrediting scientific testing.?

You are giving credit to testing that has not had any significant results, nor has been repeated with significant results.

?Perhaps you haven't been informed but scientist document all information gathered when testing something.?

Oftentimes yes, but there are plenty of scientists who bias their data to obtain positive results in any field of research. That is the point of reviewing and repeating experiments. None of PEAR?s own experiments have any significant findings, nor can any of their experiments produce findings when repeated.

?Scientific testing is a protocol that all scientist must follow in order to state their case to the scientific community. In that protocol scientist document all events/information gathered by testing. I find it funny that you believe that scientist can easily throw away documented testing because they don't like the results that came with it.?

Some scientists do indeed do this though, and that is why research is reviewed and scrutinized.

?You're under the belief that all psychokinesis related testing have the majority of fails rather than success.?

This is indeed the case.

?Well, that's science for you. Science is all about patience. Scientist cannot expect testing something without faults and failures. With testing psychokinesis, scientist have had it's failures and success.?

The successes are not routinely published as you claim. It would be interesting to see some significant findings.

?However, those few success mean something.?

Not really. There are as many successes as failures, if not more failures, in PEAR tests. Experiments that attempted to replicate the phenomena have also failed and have shown to be statistically insignificant.

?They mean that psychokinesis or any study may be in fact real and with further study/testing. This applies to every study, not just psychic related testing.?

Further study should be done but we shouldn?t jump to conclusions about anything.

?I can't even tell you how disrespectful that statement is to the scientist who focus their study towards psychic related research. You basically called their research/documented information bullshit and made up.?

Then why did Rhine have to do it? Why couldn?t they get their findings published in a more reputable journal (that they didn?t create)?

Their research does not show anything psychokinetic or psychic is happening. Many of their findings were invalidated when it was shown that magicians and mentalists were beguiling them.

?Which is entirely disrespectful. You're making your own opinions and grouping your opinions with conspiracies that you've thought of in your head.?

You apparently haven?t done any research.

And you shouldn't be speaking of conspiracy theories Rolling Eyes

?Grow up, if you wish to make that kind of statement you better show some evidence other than accusations.?

It?s already there for you to see. You should go explore and do your own research and back up your own claims that the studies done by Rhine are evidence of anything.

?Scientist have researched and tested psychic abilities and will continue to research and test for further understanding.

Scientists have researched it, and continue to do so, but they have not found anything that is of real significance or that can be throughly tested.

?There are documented testing that show psychokinesis working. There are documented testing that supports psychokinesis.?

No there isn?t, and you have repeatedly failed to provide scientific articles that show this.

?However, testing to see if this ability is real is not enough for science.?

Of course it is, empirical observations can always be observed, measured, and published.

That?s exactly what they were trying to do with all these studies into psychokinesis, but all of them failed to show any significant findings.

?Psychokinesis cannot be given the term "real" by the scientific community without their full understanding on how it's operated.?

That?s entirely incorrect, and we certainly can say something is real without knowing how it fully works. For example, gravity, we of course know is real, but we are unsure as to how it fully works. The same goes for atomic and electromagnetic energy. Or even evolution. We see a species evolve and speciate, and so we know for sure that it happened, but just how, what were the genetic, environmental, and sexual pressures that made it evolve, may be unknown. And for years, we knew evolution was real because we would observe it happening, but didn?t know exactly how it worked. Discovering new mechanisms, especially genetic ones, helped to answer the question as to how.

?Until then, we have to count on further research. The term "We know it works, we just don't know how" is not enough for the scientific community and that is certainly understandable.?

The scientific community is not of the disposition in saying ?we know it works?. Such a statement is entirely groundless, with no restatement of the reasons why being necessary.

?Obviously not. I'm basically holding your hand through out this debate.?

If you say so.

Looks like your dragging behind.

?You're bringing nothing to the table aside from your own personal opinion. Once again, you're not impressing me.?

Yea OK LoL.

More pointless, off topic ramblings.

?If that is your attitude than you have absolutely know right to call yourself a skeptic.?

Perhaps you should do some research.

?You're just a fool who's sticking to his opinion by avoiding the facts.?

I think you are the one avoiding the facts. And at this point perhaps I?d go so far as to say lying about them the facts as well.

?It's funny how you believe that your attitude towards psionics is healthy, it certainly is not.?

It?s funny how you believe psionics is real and claim I believe in anything.

?If you wish to call yourself a skeptic then you have to be willing to research your opponents opinions.?

Perhaps again you should do some research yourself and as well read the links you yourself provide, since what you posted only backs up what I have already told you (since I?ve gone through that site before and many others long prior to this).

?Psychokinesis is proven to work, it's not proven by the scientific community due to the fact that science does not know how psychokinesis is fully operated. Don't disregard scientific testing.?

You repeat this like a techno beat but repeatedly fail to provide evidence of such.

It?s not known to work period, let alone how.

?I haven't lied through out this entire debate. All of my statements come from research.?

All of your statements are either unfounded opinions, rhetorical statements, and ad homs.

Your repetitive claims that psychokinesis is a scientifically proven empirical phenomena is entirely bunk, and every time you say that it is, you are basically lying.

?You're portraying your personal opinion as facts. When it's not, you're not putting up a good argument. You're embarrassing yourself.?

It appears you are embarrassing yourself. Perhaps you should go re-read your own link and do some research.

But it?s funny you?d have to backpedal to such ad homs against me and continually repeat the same nonsense. Shows you really do have nothing to offer.

?Like I've stated earlier, I have nothing to prove to you.?

You have quite a bit to prove.

But it's doesn't seem fishy to me when someone would try and distort scientific findings and then claim they have nothing to prove.

You say you have nothing to prove but then you say you will come see me and prove it. So which is it?

?However, I'll certainly give you a chance to see if I'm a liar or not.?

Well you haven?t done very good in the science department but we?ll see if you can do anything significant.

?I'll be more than happy to meet you in person and perform psychokinesis. I've said that to all of my skeptics and I will continue to. Send me a private message if you want to set any meeting up. If you're serious about that, please inform me in PM. I've worked with college professors in the past and I'm currently working with a friend who's a scientist based on psionics. I'll be more than happy to set something up this summer.?

I?ll do that and we?ll see what happens.

?You misunderstood my statement. I've taught students how to learn psychokinesis, I haven't performed magic tricks. The main difference between me and others is that I'm willing to help others learn psychokinesis as well as many other psionic related abilities. That goes for people that I have arguments with, if you wish to learn psychokinesis, then let me know. I'll be more than happy to give you a helping hand. Perhaps with your own experience you'll be able to see our point of view.?

We?ll talk about some live tests and we?ll see what happens with everything.

?I'm sure people have encountered that problem when dealing with psychokinesis. Under the belief that they are accomplishing psychokinesis when in actuality they aren't. However, that can be avoided by intelligent testing. Meaning, shielding an object and standing further away from it. Also known as long distance PK.?

Well, if you can really do something like that at a distance, why haven?t we read about it in science magazine?

You?d be the next hottest thing since sliced bread.

And banned from any casino in the world?.

Perhaps I?d recommend then going to the casino first.

?You're absolutely correct. Critical thinking is very intelligent. However, there is a difference between critical thinking and being pure narrow minded. Also, you're under the belief that your sharing your opinion in a respectable manner when in actuality you aren't. It's alright be critical, just have some respect for others.?

Narrow-minded? Disrespectful? Sorry, but I have not been afforded the same kindness I have offered. You will blare around your opinion but when I try to inform you of the reality of the situation you will get all up in arms and throw ad hom arguments one after another. Like here again. What am I to do?

?Perhaps you would like to stop by the chat room. We have many intelligent discussions based on psionic related issues. We also have a practice room where members have the opportunity to practice psionics with each other. I'm more than willing to practice with you. Stop by the chat and see if were all role playing or not. I'll be there?

Is it gabbly or irc? The gabbly one had people around for a bit and it was nice but I never was able to get the irc chat to work. Though unless you can ?guess? objects in my hand through space/time I don?t think I?d be interested in either chat.

?Skepticism is welcome here.?

Apparently not. I see what happens when skepticism is spoken here and not just with me.

?We have a thread where there are many discussions based on skeptical opinions. I believe we've had many great discussions based on skepticism and psionics.?

If the arguments from skeptics are weak or everyone is just skeptic bashing then I?m sure you?d say it was a great discussion. I think this is a good discussion, though there are the typical fluffs in-between who will be dealt with accordingly.

?If you feel that your being attacked by another member due to your beliefs, then please inform myself or another moderator.?

I have tried to discuss such instances with moderators and I am met with the same attitude as with the person(s) causing the problem.

?I would like to believe that this debate is beneficial to yourself and to other members.?

It has certainly been beneficial in many ways.

?That my friend is ridicules. Although I have spoken my opinion on this manner is an blunt manner, I have not crossed the line of being disrespectful.?

Blunt?

If you say so. I?m sure you?ll be all like ?I do say so? LoL Rolling Eyes

?This conversation showed two things. Those two things are; you spread your opinion and offer it as factual information and that you obviously have no idea what your talking about. Like I said, you have not put up a good argument.?

More disrespectful, unfounded opinions on your part.

Ridiculous indeed.

?That is another ridiculous accusation. I have yet to see another mod insult you for sharing your opinion in an respectable manner. However, if you insult another regardless of levels, they'll attack back. It's human nature.?

I do share ideas in a respectful way, yet I am then jumped on when others wish to draw conclusions that are not there. Oh well.

?We certainly do not. I promise you that we will continue this debate and this topic will not be locked if you continue to follow the rules. Once you break our rules, I am obligated to lock this thread.?

Then why are topics locked like candy for nothing?

I think this thread should be locked because YOU broke the rules Very Happy

?I can understand that. I am willing to meet with you and participate in testing.?

Woohoo! Hope you like MA and have gas money.

?That is once again your opinion on the matter. Can you actually say that you know for sure that I am not moving the object using nothing but the mind? No. It's all opinions until further research is done.?

It is up to you to prove that you are absolutely moving the object with your mind before one can say that it is a sure thing. There is no reason to think you are moving the object with your mind until research is done that shows this is indeed the case.

?Once again, I do not lie. Although one could say that I am, it's only an opinion until it's proven.?

It is only your opinion that you are moving something with your mind until you prove you actually are.

?You're neglecting once again scientific testing and that is where your loosing this debate.?

The scientific testing done is in accordance with what I have been telling you all along, you keep ignoring this.

?We know that psychokinesis is not proven by scientific standards however, it's certainly proven to work in testing. There have been many documented success with psychokinesis.?

No there have not. Such successes are neither statistically significant nor were there any star people creating adverse effects, like levitating rolls of toilet paper. Saying there have been is the same as lying.

?You're not going to be able to know until you see first hand. Which is fine, the majority of people are like that. "I'll believe it when I see it" is a quote that comes to mind. Like I said, we can make arrangements in PM. However, that's only if the school is involved. I am not going to meet with you, move a book and call it a day. I'm sure that's understandable.?

No it?s not understandable, but expected. I?ll see what I can arrange with some professors, especially those I am closer with, but people are generally too busy to be interested (especially in summertime) especially without some promise beforehand that it will work. But I do know one professor who I am very close with who would probably be interested so long we both wouldn?t be wasting our time. I conduct independent research on my own accord, but no professor I know of does such kind of research at my school. My professor may be interested but I don?t know what you may be willing to move or what you feel the extent of your ability is so that we can test it. I would be willing to work independantly or with an associated professor and I have enough equipment to document the meeting.

?Ah, you're helping me with my argument. If I show you or scientist that I can accomplish psychokinesis, does that make it real??

Yes it shows you can perform a paranormal feat that is traditionally defined as psychokinesis/telekinesis.

?Maybe to you or the scientist that participated in the experiments but to the science community, it's just another documented case. Thank you for that.?

It would be the first such documented case were it to occur and I would like to test it out.

Posted on Sun Jun 25, 2006 1:40 pm

psi_manipulator_3000

Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 1274

Kief, why do you have this attitude to pk? You are stating that pk is not real. You do it on Kieth Mayes site all the time. You say stuff like pk isn't real. Get over it and grow up. I don't think credible scientists would be saying that to people. They wouldn't be acting like this online. They would be questoning yes. That's good. But what you are doing is not questioning, it's enforcing. That's where you lose all respect from us Kief. You wouldn't see credible scientists saying that pk isn't real. You're acting like a little child who can't get his way.
And when you said about prayer. Omg. You say that prayer doesn't exist? How fucking dare you! How fucking dare you. Who are you to say that? I respect athiests, but saying straight out that prayer is bullshit really gets me angry. I am catholic and I don't take shit like that. Rethink your arguement kief. That little message above the text box that says "Be Intelligent". Read it or fuck off. Your choice.

Posted on Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:08 pm

maxus

Joined: 13 Jun 2006
Posts: 851

Weve all said it several times, and the son of a bitch doesnt want to listen, its like he has nothing better to do in his fucking boring life than tell Pker's that their beliefs are bullshit, there is no reasoning with Kief, hes one of the lowest of the low.

Posted on Sun Jun 25, 2006 3:48 pm

Kief

Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 120

"Kief, why do you have this attitude to pk?"

Why do you have this attitude towards pk?

"You are stating that pk is not real."

Did you really read what I stated?

"You do it on Kieth Mayes site all the time."

WTF? I haven't been or posted there in like 2 months.

"You say stuff like pk isn't real."

In most instances no it isn't.

"Get over it and grow up."

I think you need to get over it.

"I don't think credible scientists would be saying that to people."

There isn't a credible scientist who would say pk is real or has been demonstrated.

"They wouldn't be acting like this online."

Acting like what?

You are the one acting poorly and discrediting yourself with your rhetorical nonsense and lame ad homs.

"They would be questoning yes. That's good. But what you are doing is not questioning, it's enforcing."

You are not listening, nor even making an attempt to be reasonable.

"That's where you lose all respect from us Kief."

Like I care what people who have no respect for science may think.

"You wouldn't see credible scientists saying that pk isn't real."

Um, yea you would. Are you trying to be serious? Did you read my post?

Apparently you have not done any research.

"You're acting like a little child who can't get his way."

It rather seems like you are acting that way when you are proven wrong. Oh well.

"And when you said about prayer. Omg. You say that prayer doesn't exist? How fucking dare you! How fucking dare you. Who are you to say that?"

I am a person who expects claims to be proven, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you claim that you can ask a divine being to create a miracle for you and it'll happen, then you better have some good solid proof for everything you just said.

"I respect athiests, but saying straight out that prayer is bullshit really gets me angry."

Well, it's bullshit. Stop being a little baby and get over it.

"I am catholic and I don't take shit like that."

I don't care what cult you belong to I'm not going to let people say things that aren't proven, especially scientifically, are.

"Rethink your arguement kief."

It appears you are the one who must rethink their arguments.

"That little message above the text box that says "Be Intelligent". Read it or fuck off. Your choice."

You should take your own advice and BE INTELLIGENT next time before you post a boring diatribe of senseless ad homs and repeated fallacies.

Perhaps you should try proof-reading and thinking when you next choose to type something.

Posted on Sun Jun 25, 2006 3:50 pm

Kief

Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 120

"Weve all said it several times, and the son of a bitch doesnt want to listen, its like he has nothing better to do in his fucking boring life than tell Pker's that their beliefs are bullshit, there is no reasoning with Kief, hes one of the lowest of the low."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

So says the little faker who was owned on the pk forums when he wanted to present a bullshit video as real.

More senseless ad homs and ramblings from another drone. Typical, vapid, illogical, and boring.

Posted on Sun Jun 25, 2006 4:44 pm

maxus

Joined: 13 Jun 2006
Posts: 851

Kief wrote:

Thank you Kief, you just proved my point, and if you wanna come round sometime for some hard gay sex, my email address is on my profile, i look forward to seeing you.

P.s, do you have any toys we could play with?

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Skepticism » joe t's video

You must agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy to view this website. Click here to contact the webmaster.