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 Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:07 am

maxus

Joined: 13 Jun 2006
Posts: 851

Kief,
Im sensing youre a very emotionally angry person, mainly with yourself, here....http://hcd2.bupa.co.uk/fact_sheets/html/managing_anger.html, treat yourself to some relaxing foot massages, read some housewives digest, have some cucumber slices over your eyes while being treated with a mud mask, go on Kief, you deserve it buddy, i hear the best way to relieve anger is to relax, take some deep breathes and let it all out. I hope this helps you in the long run.

Your best Pal,

Maxus

Posted on Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:38 am

Woodpecker

Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 218

Quote:

"Like I've stated earlier, I have nothing to prove to you. However, I'll certainly give you a chance to see if I'm a liar or not. 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."

Keif, IN THIS VERY THREAD (bottom of page 2) JoeT offered to come to your labs to be tested.

Posted on Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:03 am

infected

Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 104

Quote:

Can I ask you a question?

Why would you end a pointless ranting full of ad homs with the phrase "no disrespect intended"?

Because there really was no disrespect intended, I ment everything I wrote in the exact tone I wrote it in. The point of my post is not to make you offended or make you laugh or sick or anything, it's there because I thought it would open your eyes just a tiny bit.

Quote:

Judging by your careless and vapid assessment of my posts I'd say you are the one who is a frustrated teenager, projecting his senseless angst onto me.

Probably. But I'm not a silly no-one with oh-look-at-me attitude offending people everywhere I go writing some scientific-skeptic-bullcrap. You know there is probably ten times more forums on the net about skepticism on the psi subject that there is on the psi subject itself, so I recommend you go find one of them. Oh yes but where would the fun be then, right?

Quote:

If you want to beLIEve so, you can believe anything you wish. Invisible pink elephants, vampiric hebrew god-men rising from the grave, all-knowing attitudes, you can believe in whatever kind of delusion your mind imagines.

So by any definition at all it would seem very extremely REAL to me then, now wouldn't it? Just like it's real to you that we're all a bunch of faking bed-wetting teens with no life. I don't see the difference really.

Quote:

Well you certainly are not a psychologist and are a poor judge.

Well I've never said I'm good at these things but I'm trying.

Quote:

You call these vapid, inane ramblings you present to me as help?

And on another note, you would be so arrogant as to believe I actually need you or anyone else's help with anything?

Seems to me people like you DO need help, because your life is nothing more than a protocol, by which you will depend on the rest of your life. Its a shame more people don't see that Rolling Eyes

Quote:

Help me with what?

I haven't lost anything here, rather I have invalidated what the opposition has stated. Apparently you are so blind and close-minded that you would rather live in your own little world than actually read what I wrote.

I read all the posts in this debate and I'm not convinced that you're trying to make a good point. Instead you go around spreading your bullshitism everywhere you step. That's quite a nice thing to do with your free time really yeah, but it's not going to get you far.

Quote:

That's because you are a mindless drone who cannot think for himself.

Quote:

Whatever you say, why don't you actually show this though?

Because I have had to respond to senseless, illogical, and baseless tripe that has no evidence to support it nor any sort of functional grounding in reality.

And since, I supported my arguments with actual scientific articles, quotes, logic, links, reason, etc.

Oh really I thought you just copied some links from JoeT ... oh what a shame for me?

Quote:

Yea OK.

You're just another parrot. Squawk squawk!

Parrots are one of the most intelligent beings on this planet. Besides, they are beautiful and they can talk. So if you wanted to make me feel bad you failed Smile

Quote:

You have no basis to call any sort of paranormal event or ability, such as pk or telepathy, psi-related.

That's what you think. Look, I can't figure out why the hell would some guy who totally despises the things this page stands for, would even go around any yack around like that? What are you trying to prove? You keep on saying that we should prove this and we should prove that and that well guess what WE DON'T. It's up to you to believe whatever you'd like to believe, and it's definately not up to us to go and try to convince a silly skeptic. We convince people that want to be convinced, we show people that want to walk this path that it is indeed possible, we don't go around showing telekinesis to majority of people because they're simply dumb like you and even if I would to put a pinwheel in a jar and move it underneath it you would still come up with some sort of explanation. Oh yes, it was the flood in South Africa right? Confused

Let me remind you that 90% of people on Earth think just about the same way you do, and in my opinion (and everybody else's too I guess) that is very sad. But go on, think what you want to think we won't stop you.

Quote:

Like you know jesus is real right?

Jesus WAS real smartass.

Quote:

Well that's because you are delusional.

Which is your fault not mind.

Fine, think that way. So what is it to you?

Quote:

Another problem and product of a delusional mind; not being able to see their errors even when proven wrong.

If you'd be alive when the airplane was invented you'd probably go to Wright brothers and tell them they're never going to make it and there's no scientific explanation why half a tone of iron would fly in the air.

Quote:

And that's because they should be suspicious.

Nothing that is said about psionics is in any way evidenced or proven, especially scientifically.
The scientific evidence actually weighs against the case for paranormal phenomena and even more-so against a case for phenomena so-termed as "psionic".

That's because you read too much skeptic's journals.

Quote:

And this particular forum is dedicated to skepticism of any so-deemed "psi-work" and the actual effort put into the baseless claims people make.

True, though this conversation would be a lot more interesting if you wouldn't have that i'm-your-god-you-stupid-noobs-in-your-face-attitude. I like debating with skeptics when they're intelligent and nice. In fact you can be a drug addict, or a whore, or a billionare or you could stand against everything I stand for and I wouldn't mind it had you a good character and a kind personality. I'm not going to start arguing because you feel you are smarter than everyone and you can prove anyone wrong. That's not my point of being. I'm here to help people and to help myself, no other reason.

Quote:

Well guess what - it isn't going to happen, because no one has such an ability to want to come to my location and show they can do it.

Yeah that's because NOBODY CARES about some closed-minded fool on the other side of the planet. And JoeT offered you a demonstration, why don't you accept that?

Quote:

Perhaps one of my paranormal abilities is that in my presence, you have no power.

This one's actually funny.

Quote:

So what? I'm supposed to just believe you?

Nobody said that. But it's my personal experience and I'm not the kind of guy that would lie to prove a point. I can give you my word, if you are willing to accept it that's your issue really.

Quote:

I have made my intentions for being on these forums quite clear from the beginning.

You obviously are a nub who doesn't know his ass from his elbow.

Yeah ... whatever

Quote:

No, you are rather breaking the forum's rules.
You have failed to be intelligent, you have attacked me with a load of senseless ad homs, you have posted a bunch of off topic rhetorical jargon that addresses nothing I have said, and you have clearly lied about myself and what I have wrote without even bothering to read it first.

First of all, you seemed unintelligent to me as well, and I didn't attack you I just said that you're probably a dumbass which I still mean. And since your debating skills are quite awfull you're not really worthy of my time (or anyone elses for that matter). Second, if you'd be a little more (insert positive word) you would know that all the kung-fu masters also phrase themselves rhetoricaly and it's usually very hard to understand Very Happy

. And yes I bothered reading your posts, unfortunately for me that was just a big waste of time.

peace ?

Posted on Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:02 am

infected

Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 104

On a more positive note, I do have to say that I like his signature ... reminds me of a great movie Laughing

.

peace ?

Posted on Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:41 am

maxus

Joined: 13 Jun 2006
Posts: 851

Hmmm, sounds like a description of Jurassic Park Confused

Posted on Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:53 am

Gonzo

Joined: 13 Jan 2006
Posts: 798

Its from the movie: Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, the guy used muscaline and some other drugs and began hallucinating...

Posted on Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:05 pm

Joshy

Joined: 09 May 2006
Posts: 544

Kief wrote:

"Ah. One of my relatives friends can apparently "overwhelm" someone with energy until they pass out
I have NO idea if its true as he hasn't ever done it to me. But he's an honest guy and I doubt he's lying."

A relative's friend?

Oh geeze. "My uncle's father's cousin's roommate could do this neat trick and make people pass out".

If anything, he is hypnotizing people.

In any event, neither could work on me.

"If PsiPog allowed combat I'm sure someone could make a vid or something for it."

Making someone go to sleep is neither paranormal nor combat.

Hypnosis without moving or using words? You have a hell of an induction there my friend!
"In any event, neither could work on me." Wow..You're hard, aren't you.
I didn't say sleep Neutral

If you're gonna argue you could atleast use the words I actually said. Confused

Posted on Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:24 pm

Ebonknowledge

Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 57

To me it sounds like Kief is some fool who learned the meaning ad hom and now uses it as his only over-used pathetic shield against all other offensive comments, yet at the same time you say just a bunch of "ad homs" you respond with the EXACT same thing, a bunch of personal comments to insult people... No to offense because I care nothing for this arguement seeing how I have no proof of PK and care nothing to discredit the supernatural being a student of the occult, but a tip to sound more intelligent and perhaps gain more respect, I realize it can be hard sometimes to not sound redundent but you are over using that "ad hom" phrase way to much, I hope you don't reply to me with any "ad homs" you might hurt my feelings Very Happy

Posted on Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:03 pm

Azloral

Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 3

Kief,

Mr 1 Post no longer. In anycase, I don't know why I bothered to talk to such a fool. That soul thing was an overstatement (another english vocab word you can learn besides ad hom), but I wouldn't be surprised if Joe could. In anycase, I'll let him take care of you, if he decides your worth his time.

I know you are not to me, nor to most of the people here.

-Azloral

P.S. I was around here much longer than you think...this is just my permanent alias from now on. Don't assume you can disregard everything someone says by the amount of posts they have.

Good Day.

Posted on Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:02 pm

JoeT

Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 349

Hello Kief,

Alright, a little better but you're still not impressing me. I am glad to see that you've taken my advice and added more effort to this debate. I appreciate it. I would like to participate in a semi-decent debate. Not a waste of my time. I?m sure you can understand that. Let's get this started.

Quote:

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

You may as well call psi magick or chi.

A lot of people do consider psionics magick. I have had many intelligent conversations with people from different communities who fully believe psionics is just another form of magick. Perhaps they're right. Perhaps they aren't. It's all based on how you personally view the subject.

Quote:

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.

Giving an ability a name isn't uncommon. You must understand the history of psychic abilities to fully comprehend the meaning of different beliefs, techniques and rituals. Please note; scientist has classified certain psychic abilities as psionics in a sense. I don't understand your problem with the title of psionics. Perhaps you need to do some research on the name, before attacking it.

Quote:

The term 'psi' was introduced to be a neutral term for a variety of 'paranormal' phenomena, free of the implicit assumptions that are contained within labels such as psychokinesis ('movement by mind') or telepathy ('feeling or perception at a distance'), and of the whole assumption of paranormality. It was originally split into two categories of psi-kappa and psi-gamma, denoting active and passive psi, the first subsuming those phenomena such as psychokinesis which appeared to involve an effect upon another system, the second covering phenomena such as extrasensory perception, which showed a more receptive aspect. The main problem with the terms is that they do not have a precise definition, indicating which phenomena may be counted as psi and which are excluded. Psi has been defined as the 'unknown factor' in psychic experiences, and often this is modified to being a factor which is not reliant on the conventional sensorimotor channels.

Quote:

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 have proven that I can remote view, manipulate psi energy and perform psychokinesis. Those who know me on a personal level, have seem me do a lot of psionic related abilities. Now, have I proved psionic related abilities by scientific means? No. However, I have had experiences where I have sat down and talked/performed psionic related abilities in the company of college professors and local scientist.

If you haven't read the recent news, Peebrain, myself and Erik have been working on measuring psionics with an interesting gadget called the geiger counter. We sat down, logged into an online telephone program and opened Erik's web cam which showed his graphs/geiger counter. While talking, we decided to try it out.

Now, I've heard you have many questions and skepticism towards the geiger counter and it's results. Allow me to clarify this matter. Perhaps your misunderstanding of the test is due to not hearing our procedure and the precautions we took to insure that it was the sender who was making the graph spike.

Before starting this experiment, Erik gave all of us the basic outlines on how we would be operating this experiment. His instructions were simply; "When I say go, start to send/project energy towards the geiger counter. Then, when I say stop, stop what you're doing". This insured that the sender was sending his energy in the required time period. Allow me to show you how this experiment went.

Erik: Okay Joe, are you ready?
Joe: Yes, I am.
Erik: Alright, good luck.
Erik: Go.
*Sends*
*The graph went from 15 to 47 in a matter of seconds*
Erik: Stop
*Counter slowly goes down*
People: Holy shit!

That was a basic outline of the experiment. Please note: the graph raised when Erik told myself or another to start and it sloped when he told us to stop. Now, doesn't that interest you in any way?

Quote:

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.

Like I've stated, you need to first understand the meaning of the title, before you attack it. What you need to also understand is the history of that name and people's beliefs on it. I don't understand your problem with the name, I simply find it interesting that you're concerned with the name rather than what the name represents.

Quote:

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.

Perhaps you should take your own advice. That paragraph pointed out two things; that this conversation is based on personal views/opinion and that the information being presented in being used in every other post. I have noticed that as well. However, it's pulling teeth with you to comprehend my point of views based on scientific testing and psionics (psychic abilities).

I also understand your point on the amount of respect given to each other between this argument. I have used some unfriendly words that I am not proud of and I'm sure you have certain statements that you feel the same about. You have my full understanding on this matter and throughout this debate, no personal attacks or harsh words will be exchanged on my part.

Quote:

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

I don't gamble.

Quote:

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

Their is no evidence showing on any thread that stated "Hey, make us some fake video's of they're so easy to make!". You made those video's for your own pleasure. No one asked you to do so. If you wish to prove me wrong, I would like to see the logs of that conversation.

Quote:

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?

Like I've stated, science hasn't proved the existence of psychokinesis. Science has done some past testing that has showed certain unknown activity, but as I've said, showing is not proving. We know it works, we don't know how it works. Until we find out how psychokinesis works, we won't see any information based on psychokinesis in school textbooks. However, we have certainly seen psychokinesis and other psionic related abilities talked/shown on television, magazines, radio shows etc.

Quote:

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

That is absolutely incorrect. Once again, please do not insult scientific testing. You make it sound that scientist are allowing people to show up wearing large coats, sitting them down, watching them move an object, then the scientist asking the man to take off his jacket and in doing so, finding a very large magnet. Scientist take the proper precautions before attempting the experiment.

Quote:

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.

The Russian documents for scientific research based on psychic abilities is actually quite an interesting read. Russia and the United States spent millions of dollars researching psychic abilities. In doing so, they were able to effectively use remote viewing. Russia also spent time/money on other aspects of intelligence gathering techniques as well as psychical abilities such as PK. Now, I don't believe that two super powers would spend millions of dollars and decades of investigating/research/testing on something that isn't real.

We may never know if the Russian documented evidence based on researching psychic abilities is actual information or altered information to scare the United States. We may also never find out if the United States or Russia ever really stoped investigating this subject. What we do know is that by doing years of research, both countries were able to effectively use remote viewing as a source for gathering information. Remote viewing was proven to work and was used until the end of the Cold War.

Quote:

?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.

Using gravity as an example is a good example. Like you've stated, gravity isn't yet known how it operates and why it happens. However, science still states gravity as real. However, that's expected. The difference from PK and gravity is gravity is a natural force for this planet. If science couldn't explain why we are held to this planet or why matter tends to fall towards the earth when dropped, does that make science look intelligent? No.

Gravity is everywhere on this planet. People cannot escape the earths gravitational pull. Science is obligated to give an understanding to one of earths main aspects to the general public. I can understand the scientific communities decision on making gravity "real" by scientific means because not only does scientist know that gravity is there and working, everyone does! Psychokinesis on the other hand has only been reported by a handful of people. Not everyone understands or experiences psychokinesis. I'm sure you understand where I'm going with this.

Quote:

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.

I can't tell you how frustrating this is. I have supplied plenty of material that supports my statements. I have listed scientist, organizations, universities, testing experiments, dates etc. You're either not understanding my given information or you're ignoring it. From a scientific viewpoint there needs to be more clear cut evidence into the phenomena. Since there has not been any clear cut evidence to date is remains a phenomena until there is documentation available to us which will prove how and why psychokinesis is an existing conscious power. This will, unfortunately, require time and with that time we can search for our own clues into the phenomena of psychokinesis. Please don't neglect scientific testing, there is proof that something abnormal is occurring when these test are being operated.

Quote:

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.

I'm showing you my material and certainly giving my argument. My argument is simply: Psychokinesis has been tested through scientific means to work effectively with highly significant results. Throughout this debate, I have been supplying you with information based on science testing psychokinesis and other psychic abilities.

You're telling me that science has absolutely no evidence of psychokinesis existing and it's fake without a doubt. Well, psychokinesis is not proven by scientific means, however, science has tested psychokinesis in many occasions as well as other governments/countries to work. Knowing something works isn't proving it's existence, I know that. However, don't neglect documentation, something is there and science will continue to investigate this phenomenon

Quote:

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.

You're neglecting the results of scientific testing! Psychokinesis has been tested and it has worked! You can't jump over this evidence and say that nothing is there. There is something there! If there isn't, science wouldn't still be investigating this phenomena. People like Helmut Schmidt, Dr. Julius Krmessky, Dr. J.B Rhine, Dr. Genady Sergeyev, Ingo Swann, Uri Geller all participated in testing the existence of psychokinesis with significant results, don't neglect that.

Quote:

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?

Good God man, give them some credit. You're making scientist out to be liars when they're not. Scientist do not write false information to support their claim on any aspect of study. Where would lying get them? These men and women are very intelligent people investigating a phenomena. Please do not insult them by calling them liars. You have no right to state that accusation.

As for the other comments, probably not. A lot of people write false information to make their image seem better. However, please take in consideration that these people are not certified scientist making false claims. If scientist make these false claims, other scientist would surely want to view these amazing results for themselves only to be wasting their time while they find out that the scientist who wrote his/her tested documentation lied. Scientist wouldn't do that knowing that the situation written above would happen.

Quote:

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.

If that is your beliefs, then stick with them. However, like I've stated, people have different views/beliefs on this subject. We all have our personal views on everything, we all like make our own personal analogies and theories. Psionic is a name. It's a title given to the practice of psychic abilities. When we use the term "psionics" we're referring to the practice of psychic abilities. Whether it's telepathy, empathy, psychokinesis, energy manipulation, clairvoyance, etc. These abilities fall under the category of psionics. You can call psionics anything you wish, just note that other people have their own personal views on the subject as well.

Quote:

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.

That's precisely what scientist are trying to accomplish with testing psychic abilities in labs. The more evidence to support our claim the more of a chance will have to change the minds of the scientific community and have them take this subject more seriously.

Our government as well as other government agencies in different countries, used remote viewing which falls under the term clairvoyance as a tool for gathering information. Scientist knew that remote viewing worked yet they found it hard to convince the scientific community that remote viewing was in fact real and actually occurring. The scientific community this absolutely ridiculous and stated that remote viewing couldn't be real due to their uncertainly with knowing how remote viewing was operated.

Quote:

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.

Yes, their has been documented cases where scientist have written and reported their finding with testing psychokinesis. I'm going to now share with you organizations, studies, labs in which psychic research has been conducted.

Parapsychology Research Laboratories:

1)Abteilung f?r Psychologie und Grenzgebiete der Psychologie (A.P.G.P.) (University of Freiburg, Germany)

2) University of the West of England, Department of Psychology (Bristol, U.K.)

3) RetroPsychoKinesis Project (R.P.K.P.) (University of Kent, Canterbury, U.K.)

4) Anomalous Cognition Project (A.C.P.) (Faculty of Psychology, Amsterdam University)

5) Cavendish Laboratory and the Mind-Matter Unification Project of B. D. Josephson (Cambridge Univ., U.K.)

6) Cognitive Sciences Laboratory and the STARGATE program (Palo Alto, CA, U.S.A.)

7) Consciousness Research Laboratory (C.R.L.) (University of Nevada, Las Vegas)

8.) Consciousness and Transpersonal Psychology Research Unit (Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.)

9) Freie Universitadt Berlin (Prognosis of Stochastic Events, Precognition / Psychokinesis) (Berlin, Germany)

10) Giessen Anomalies Research Program (G.A.R.P.) (Justus-Liebig-University of Giessen, Germany)

11) Institut f?r Grenzgebiete der Psychologie und Psychohygiene (Freiburg, Germany)

12) International Consciousness Research Laboratories (Princeton, U.S.A.)

13) Koestler Parapsychology Unit at the Department of Psychology (University of Edinburgh, Scotland, U.K.)

14) Laboratory of Parapsychology of Toulouse (France)
also known as the Groupe d'Etudes Exp?rimentales des Ph?nom?nes Parapsychologiques (G.E.E.P.P.)

15) Parapsychology Study Center of Bologna (C.S.P.) (Bologna, Italy)

16) Perrott-Warrick Research Unit at the Psychology Department (University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, U.K.)

17) Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory (P.E.A.R.) (Princeton University, U.S.A.)

Scientific Parapsychology Journals:

1) http://www.parapsychology.org/

2) http://www.aspr.com/jaspr.htm

3) http://ejp.org.uk/

4) http://www.rhine.org/journal.htm

5) http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a9708242/japjournp.htm

6) http://www.aiprinc.org/

Parapsychology Organizations

1)American Association for Parapsychology (Canoga Park, CA, U.S.A.)

2) American Institute of Parapsychology (Gainesville, FL, U.S.A.)

3) American Society for Psychical Research (A.S.P.R., Boston and New York, U.S.A.)

4) Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena (Orpington, U.K.)

5) Associazione Italiana Scientifica di Metapsichica (A.I.S.M.) (Milan, Italy) (in Italian, deal with it Razz

)

6) Boundary Institute (Los Altos, CA, U.S.A.)

7) Austrian Society for Parapsychology and Border Areas (in German)

8.) Center for Frontier Sciences (C.F.S., Philadelphia, U.S.A.)

9) Central Premonitions Registry. Precognition researche and on-line precognitive dreams registration.

10) Parapsychological Study Center of Bologna (C.S.P.) (Bologna, Italy)

11) Centrum voor Psychotronische Studies en Onderzoeken (AntWerpen, Belgium) (in Dutch, deal with this also Razz

)

12) Fondation Marcel et Monique Odier de Psycho-Physique (Geneva) (in French, hope you understand them Very Happy

)

13) Foundation for Mind-Being Research (F.M.B.R.) (Los Altos, CA, U.S.A.)

14) Franklin Pierce College (F.P.C.) (Rindge, U.S.A.)

15) Global Consciousness Project (G.C.P.)

16) Groupe d'Etude et de Recherche en Parapsychologie (G.E.R.P., St Denis, France) (in French)

17) Institut M?tapsychique International (I.M.I., Paris, France) (in French)

18.) Institute of Psychophysical Research (Oxford, U.K.)

19) International Society of Life Information Science (Chiba-shi, Japan)

20) International Society for the Study of Subtle Energies and Energy Medicine (I.S.S.S.E.E.M., Golden, U.S.A.)

21) James Spottiswoode and Associates

22) Japanese Society for Parapsychology (Tokyo, Japan)

23) Organisation pour la Recherche en Parapsychologie & sur les Ph?nom?nes dits Paranormaux (OR3P, Cugnaux, France) (in French)

24) Parapsychological Association

25) Parapsychology Foundation (New York)

26) Psilog (Quebec) (in French)

27) Psychognosia (Paphros, Cyprus)

28.) Remote Viewing Research Centre (S. Crietzman ; U.K.)

29) Rhine Research Center (Institute for Parapsychology) (Durham, NC, U.S.A.)

30) Sean Harribance Institute for Parapsychology Research (S.H.I.P.R.) (Sugar Land, Texas, U.S.A.)

31) Society for Psychical Research (London, U.K.)

32) Society for Scientific Exploration (S.S.E.) (Stanford, U.S.A.)

33) Student Parapsychology Society (Cheltenham, Gloucester, U.K.)

34) Synchronicity Research Unit (Eindhoven, The Netherlands)

As you can obviously see, there are many organizations, journals and research labs that are based on researching parapsychology. Don't stand there and tell me that these abilities aren't being investigated and research. You're lying.

Quote:

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.

Once again, your ignorance is breath taking. I would like to see these documents stating that "Rhine was fooled by magicians for quite some time". Through out my research, I have yet to come across that document. If you can please show me your "crediable" sources, I will look further into the subject.

Quote:

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 phenomena do not support any claim that paranormal events happen. His mistakes do help other researchers to not repeat those mistakes though.

No, I have done my respectable amount of research. You on the other hand obviously haven't. Rhine spent the majority of his study researching parapsychology. His institute is based on researching parapsychology! His institute have spent many years researching parapsychology and they have certainly been able to support their claims with scientific testing. I find it humorous that you believe that his research based on parapsychology isn't creditable. I also find it outrages that you think his field of study wasn't related to the paranormal or psionics. Let's define parapsychology, shall we?

Quote:

The study of the evidence for psychological phenomena, such as telepathy, clairvoyance, and psychokinesis, that are inexplicable by science.

I'm honestly laughing right now. This is unbelievable. I seriously recommend that you actually do research instead of lying to yourself and others. It's embarrassing.

Quote:

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.

You missed my point when I posted that article. My point was that there were successful testing in the course of Helmut Schmidt's testing.

Quote:

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).

The majority of the testing were failures, I know that. However, please don't neglect the 71 test that passed successfully. Those 71 successful represent that something indeed is occurring. If there wasn't anything occurring relating with this phenomena, then no test results would come up as successful.

Please also take note that Helmut Schmidt's testing began in the 1960s. That was over 40 years ago. Our technology has advanced and the gadgets Schmidt used would be unreliable in today?s world. Please also take in consideration that Helmut Schmidt's testing were only from one source, there are/were others testing parapsychology related abilities.

Quote:

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

Those articles only hurt your argument. Those people are coming up with excuses such as "Potential Cheating by Subjects" without showing any proof. Remote viewing has been used by our government as well as other nations for intelligence gathering. It played a huge role in the Cold War. Remote viewing has been proven to work! These articles are doing nothing more than coming up with their own excuses. I don't care for material like this nor do I respect it. Please don't share material like this with me again, it does not help with your argument.

Quote:

Um?.

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

Good choice. You wouldn't have anything intelligent to say on this matter so it's best that you just avoid it. Thank you saving me the time. I appreciate it.

Quote:

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.

You obviously haven't read the book. Please try actually reading the book before you decided to share information or give your opinion on it. Reading a review on the book is not reading the book. Please, do the researching for yourself and stop listening to another's opinion and calling it your own. That link you supplied me had no creditable information on it aside from the authors opinion.

Quote:

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

Everyone makes mistakes. Scientist know that better than anyone. You cannot tell me that your sources are 100% correct 100% of the time. No one can say that. I find it humorous that you believe scientist from PEAR, Rhine institute, the government and other organizations data is nothing but incorrect information and unreliable. It's quite easy to discredit another?s work when you have no work to do for yourself and that is exactly what most skeptical people are doing. Criticize and gossiping over another?s work to fill in the time. Now, I'm certainly not stating that all skeptics are people like that, however the shoe certainly fits for some of them.

Quote:

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.

That is absolutely incorrect. Have you read the reports of Dean Radin and Roger Nelson? Radin and Nelson tracked down 152 reports describing 597 experimental studies and 235 control studies by 68 different investigators involving the influence of consciousness on microelectronic systems. The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab center focused more on micro-PK rather than macro-PK. I recommend you look into organizations who were more focused on macro-PK.

Quote:

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

Once again, you're incorrect. You're totally overlooking the successful experiments while scientist tested psychokinesis. Please read the following article. I believe that it is quite useful for this debate.

http://www.alternativescience.com/psychokinesis.htm

Quote:

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

My offer still stands. If your school would like to set up a date/time to test psychokinesis, I will gladly participate. However, like I said, I am not going to drive to your location and perform psychokinesis for your viewing pleasure. I am doing this for the purpose of research, nothing more.

Quote:

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.

That's scientific testing for you. In order for psychokinesis to be proven by scientific means, more test and experiments will have to be conducted. That of course means, more failures and success. Any subject being tested should have the results and scientific attitude towards it.

Quote:

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

I agree. I would like to see this subject studied further.

Quote:

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)?

This is absolutely ridiculous. Show me any documentation that shows that Rhine had ANY indication of lying or documenting false information. That is entirely unacceptable and quite frankly rude. That is an absolute lie and to say that is highly rude and disrespectful. For the record, the Rhine institute had a still does have a journal. Do some research.

Quote:

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.

The Rhine institute had amazing success with random-number-generators as well as other forms of testing for micro-PK. Perhaps you are unaware of the testing results that came from the Rhine institute when they tested with psychokinesis. Perhaps this article will help you with that.

http://www.uri-geller.com/ps2.htm

Quote:

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.

I certainly have gave you enough information to back up my statements. You on the other hand show little proof to back up your accusation. What you need to understand is that sharing your opinion and speaking with factual information are two very different means of expressing information. I know that they're skeptical information out there concerning this subject, and I certainly understand their point of view. However, neglecting scientific testing and making accusation isn't something that I respect.

Quote:

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

I can understand your point of view. Although some organizations have come up with significant data in the past, it certainly isn't enough. That is why I would like to see this subject investigated and researched further. The uncertainties are merely the challenge to further research.

Quote:

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

There are a number of experiments in which psychokinetic mediums affect quantum probabilities with micro-PK that have been successfully tested. Macro-PK have also been reported to have successful occurrences. Here are a couple of articles that I personally find informational. Perhaps you'll find them enjoyable.

1) http://www.uri-geller.com/content/research/sria.htm
2) http://www.uri-geller.com/ps2.htm
3) http://www.jackhouck.com/rvpk.shtml
4) http://www.uri-geller.com/content/research/houck3.htm
5) http://istina.rin.ru/eng/ufo/text/273.html
6) http://www.trivia-library.com/b/psychic-phenomenon-and-history-psychokinesis-or-telekinesis-part-1.htm
7) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychokinesis
8.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology
9) http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/pratt/pk.htm
10) http://www.knowallabout.com/p/ps/psychokinesis.html

Quote:

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

Perhaps you should do some research.

I know the difference between a good skeptic and a bad one. You're neglecting certain material that is harmful to your argument. Does that make you a good skeptic? No. You need to learn the difference between a good skeptic and a bad skeptic. Look around, the other members have been telling you the same thing I am for as long as you've been around. Perhaps you should start to listen.

Quote:

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.

No, you my friend are wrong. I know what I'm defending. I'm defending the history of psychokinesis. I certainly have the right to say that there were successful data obtained from scientific testing with psychokinesis. You're standing there trying to argue with factual data because you personal cannot understand or comprehend it. As for lying, I haven't lied once. All my statements have been researched and understood by myself as well as other sources.

Quote:

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

Do I sound like a person who would be wasting my time on something that isn't real? No. The people who know me personally can back my statements when I say I'm not one to believe in everything I hear. I have researched and practiced psionics for several years of my life (dating back to the mid 90's). I fully believe in psionics and I have prooven it's existence by practicing for many years and learning the majority of the abilities. Perhaps you should at least try to learn psionics so you can personally experience it.

I am unaware of your previous experience with psionics however, if you would like I will be more than happy to assist you with learning any psionic skill of your choice. If you're interested, please let me know. If you feel as if you cannot allow the public to know about this, you can contact me at JoeT@PsiPog.net

Quote:

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).

Like I've stated several times, I have done my respectable amount of research towards psychokinesis as well as psionics in general. I have spent several years doing this research. Also, the link that I posted earlier, you misunderstood the meaning. I explained that further up in this post.

Quote:

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

I'm absolutely shocked. I feel as if I should be expressing that statement. My research is backup by an considerable amount of sources. Your opinions and statements come from older skeptics who can't frankly comprehend the subject. What you don't understand you fear. So, what do people do when they fear something? They either avoid it or attack it. A lot of skeptics attack the subject and come up with theories on how and why psychokinesis cannot be real. Or any psychic ability for that matter. Not all skeptics act like that, must are reasonable and are understanding.
It's alright to remain skeptical, just have an open mind to understand another?s point of view. Don't attack the subject because you don't understand how it's logically possible.

Quote:

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.

Throughout this entire conversation, you have repeatedly called my sources unreliable due to it's nature of study. Colleges, organization, scientist have been disrespected because of their research in parapsychology. You my friend are not only lying when you call these sources unreliable, you're being disrespectful.

Quote:

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.

First off, what's with you using "ad homs" in every other sentence? It's quite annoying to read 20 times in a conversation. Back to the topic at hand, I am not embarrassing myself at all. The link I provide was to show one thing, that although the majority of Helmut Schmidt's testing failed, 71 of his test supported his ideas. Which means, his test passed 71 times. Which indicated that something is indeed occurring. If this subject wasn't real, would it have passed 71 times? I think not. It's not a lot, but it's something. Which is why I believe further research on this matter should be done.

Quote:

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?

I support research. As you can obviously tell, I wish for psychokinesis as well as other psionic related abilities to be researched by scientific means more than it already is. If you know your school will want to conduct experiments in this field, I will gladly participate. You and I have something in common, you love to share our opinions and we're searching for the truth. If we can make some arrangements for testing, let me know.

Quote:

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.

I have recently tried to contact James Randi as many of our members know. However, he has yet to return my phone calls or emails. I understand that the majority of our members would love to see someone win that challenge however, if the owner doesn't want to test someone, he doesn?t have to.

I'm not the kind of person who is looking for fame. The only reason I contacted Randi in the first place is due to countless people asking me to. So, I figured "What could it hurt?" however, nothing happened and I don't believe that going to a person like Randi would be beneficial to researching the subject. I'm interested in researching psionics for the cause of science, not fame. I'd rather help with the researching process rather than appear on a television show, move a book and it a day. I'm sure you can understand where I'm coming from.

Quote:

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?

As I've stated earlier in this post, I apologize for coming off as disrespectful and for using certain vocabulary. I have recently been shown by another moderator (peebrain) that I should be more helpful rather than argue with members. If I wasn't a moderator, I really wouldn't care how another viewed my writing. However, I respect the other moderators opinions and for that I apologize to you. You have my word that I will not use any disrespectful comments based on your statements of beliefs. I hope you can understand and show me the same gratitude.

Quote:

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.

The gabbly chat is very different from our main chat room located on IRC. I'm always around the chat room (#PsiPog) on IRC. I definitely recommend that you stop by. I would be very happy to see you there. Perhaps we can continue this conversation there or discuss science. You'll find that many of our regular members are very cool and intelligent people to talk to. If you need any help getting into the chat room, please visit the following link:

http://www.psipog.net/chat.php

I hope to see you there.

Quote:

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

Well, I'm sure you can understand how others can become offensive when you argue and attack their beliefs. We have many intelligent conversations based on scientism however, we usually have to lock the thread due to the arguing. However, if someone were to start a skeptical topic in an respectable manner, there would be less arguments and more understanding. However, if at any time someone breaks the rules or attacks your belifes, please let me know. I will deal with the situation accordindly. That goes for anyone. Moderators are here for a reason.

Quote:

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.

Well then, let me know about it. Most moderators are understanding and respectful. I know peebrain would certainly set the record straight and I'm sure other moderators will do the same. I think this debate is going fairly well and the personal attacks are limited. I find this debate to be entertaining and benifical to understand another's point of view. Hopefully we're all benifiting from this. As well as the members viewing this debate.

Quote:

It has certainly been beneficial in many ways.

I agree. It certainly has.

Quote:

Woohoo! Hope you like MA and have gas money.

If you're serious about setting up testing, let me know through email. You can again contact me at JoeT@PsiPog.net. I will be more than willing to partcipate in the interest of science and research.

Quote:

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.

As I said, I'm not going to drive down to perform psychokinesis for you personally. I will participate in this research if the school is notified and worked with. I am doing this for researching psychokinesis, not for personal gain.

Quote:

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.

There has been documented statistical success when testing psychokinesis in the past. I know you don't agree, the data says differently. PEAR, Rhine institute and others have showed reasonable cause as well as data showing the existence of psychokinesis as well as other psychic abilities. Although the data may be small, it's still showing that there is something there that should be investigated further. Please take note that research on this subject has not stopped, there are still testing/researching still being done.

Quote:

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.

As long as the school is notified that research is being done and that our research is documented, I'll participate. If you are able to set this experiment, I will share further information based on the extent of my ability with psychokinesis so future planning can begin. You can again contact me at JoeT@PsiPog.net

Quote:

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

Exactly. However, it will be just another documented case. If you and I set this experiment and we are indeed successful, do you think that other people may attack our research and findings? Yes. There will always be someone who disagrees.

Take care.

- JoeT

Posted on Sat Jul 01, 2006 4:11 am

maxus

Joined: 13 Jun 2006
Posts: 851

Thats a looooooooonnnnnnnnggggggggg post, but yes, i couldnt agree more, hes just ignoring the facts. Maybe hes such a bitch is because psychokinesis doesnt work for him im pretty sure thats why hes like how he is.

Posted on Sat Jul 01, 2006 10:06 am

Ebonknowledge

Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 57

This argument is highly interesting to me, and with all those links I could learn a lot Very Happy

Posted on Sat Jul 01, 2006 2:52 pm

psi_manipulator_3000

Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 1274

Kief has probably been writing his response all day long by quoting every single line of what JoeT wrote. Laughing

This is just never gonna stop is it? They should both just each write a book on it and let that be it.

Posted on Sun Jul 02, 2006 2:32 am

Azloral

Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 3

And that, my friends, is exactly how Joe takes care of things.

I was debating whether to write an argument, but I figured as much he'd already have had it finished. Well said, with a VERY long yet informative post.

Now, Kief, what do you have to say? Rolling Eyes

Posted on Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:07 am

Woodpecker

Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 218

Indeed that is probably the best argument against a sceptic I have ever seen. Well done JoeT. Very Happy

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.