View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Video about how pseudoskeptics strangle their intelligence

Discuss PseudoSkeptics and their Fallacies. Share strategies for debating them.

Video about how pseudoskeptics strangle their intelligence

Postby Scepcop » 09 Nov 2009, 01:42

From SteveTrueBlue:

This video explains in some detail how living and using Uncertainty is necessary to grow true intelligence.

The corollary is that pseudoskeptics who do the oposite- running away from uncertainty are actually strangling their own intelligence growth. Explains a lot doesn't it !

The video consists of a number of eminent scientists explaining the necessary role of uncertainty.




Description:

Pseudoskeptics make careers out of denying that uncertainty should be tolerated. Award winning scientists explain here that Uncertainty is the fabric of everything and running away from uncertainty is a loser's game, that shrinks intelligence ! Inability to live with uncertainty is a mild autism. So is the inability to tolerate others who can live happily with uncertainty.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29






Re: Video about how pseudoskeptics strangle their intelligence

Postby brett » 09 Nov 2009, 03:18

INTRESTING - BUT I WOULD TAKE ISSUE WITH THE NEED TO BELEIVE IN ANY GOD - yes sure question if such a being exists - but don't let it rule all - other than that a good summation -

see to put it simply - pseudo skeptics never seem to stop and think WHAT IF ?? - WE ALL have to ask our selves this very question every day - what if i don't get up ? - what will happen ? - what if i walk this way today ?? - what will happen ? - we do it subconsciously most of the time - but I and others who deal / have dealt with emergencies do a LOT of what iffing - when faced with fluid and rapidly changing circumstances - one has to be ABLE to do so - nothing is predictable - nothing is set in stone -NOTHING conforms to the "textbook" description - each and every incident is different - just like each day , and if one throws in the multitudinous actions of each and every one on the planet , all affecting in some small way OUR actions - then WHAT IFFING is a real art

and ONE of the biggest WHAT IF'S ?? - that we ALL have to face is what if we are wrong ?? - for example in fire fighting - one turns up at a job , you weigh up the situation and then pause and think but what if x is true ( say the building on fire is not as well built as others you have experienced ) what if i send my guys in there ?? will it collapse or not ?? - and what am i going to do IF it does ?? - its ALL what ifs ?? - what if we don't have enough water?? - what if there is something explosive in there ?? what if ??........................ you get my drift

and life is like that - as is the question of death - its ALL what if - but if we just sit back and let others do our thinking for us .................... -i sometimes ask people WHY they beleive the way they do ?? - many say this that and the other - but in truth many do so because they where TAUGHT that X is so by others ,who where taught X is so by others etc etc etc - ( i beleive they call it education ) but ( and i know this to my cost ) those who DARE to question that perceived wisdom and say hang on WHAT IF X is NOT X ?? as you are teaching me - but in fact Z - you just get told thats the way of it and better minds than yours say so - probably because thse "better minds " have never themselves stopped and questioned the perceived wisdom of X - and are content to just go along with the "establishment view " that X is indeed X - because if they where to teach that X could be in fact Z - then they would be censured or out of a job

for those of you who have never HAD to make a lot of decisions in life - the above will make no "logical" sense - as you will accept the textbook answer to all problems is correct - but this is not so ,there IS always another way to skin the poverbial cat - and just because some one you respect ( or fear ?? ) as a teacher tells you X is X - it ain't always so !!

I personally beleive that those who just say "yes sir " to any thing are little better than sheep - i prefer and in fact used to encourage my guys to also think "what if he is wrong ??" - and trust me - someone asking that and making ME stop and think for a moment has saved all our asses on a couple of occasions ( i WAS the guy who was supposed to HAVE all the answers as i was "in charge" ) - oh dont get me wrong most of the time i like any "leader " expected the guys to conform to my assesment of situations and plan of action - but i NEVER slagged a guy down for asking WHAT IF ??

no one knows it all !! no one gets it right all the time and no one should EVER stop asking WHAT IF ?? ;)
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK

Re: Video about how pseudoskeptics strangle their intelligence

Postby NinjaPuppy » 09 Nov 2009, 04:21

Excellent post Brett.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Video about how pseudoskeptics strangle their intelligence

Postby Scepcop » 14 Nov 2009, 03:03





http://www.rense.com/general88/menwho.htm

Men Who Stare At Goats - The True
Story Behind The Film
By Dick Allgire
11-8-9

It was some thirty years ago on the big screen that we watched Darth Vader kill a subordinate with sheer force of will. Displeased with the performance of Admiral Ozzel because he brought his ships out of hyperspace too soon, alerting the Rebels to their presence, Darth Vader held up his hand and pinched the air. Moviegoers will recall the hapless admiral choking for air and falling over dead. Darth Vader killed the admiral with a look, employing some unseen force of Mind.

It was pure science fiction. Or was it? At about this same time, a U.S. Army Special Forces soldier was felling goats in much the same manner. Now this story is coming to the big screen.

"The Men Who Stare At Goats" is a soon to be released major motion picture starring George Clooney, Jeff Bridges, and Ewan McGregor. It is a lighthearted look at how the U.S. Army explored paranormal powers, "new age" parapsychology and psychic functioning in the late 1970's and early 80s. The film portrays all of this in a whimsical and comical tone, but the real story is deadly serious.

The character portrayed by George Clooney is based on retired Special Forces Intel First Sergeant Glenn Wheaton. In real life Wheaton is a character far too complex to portray in a two-hour movie. In his Army career Wheaton was a stone cold killer, a Green Beret door-knocker as well as a remote viewer, a type of psychic spy who could readily displace his awareness to remote locations across space and time to bring back actual intelligence grade data using only his mind. He's also a boy from the Louisiana Bayou, a southern gentleman, a kind and caring teacher.

The title of the upcoming movie, "The Men Who Stare at Goats" is based on an incident in which a Green Beret instructor killed a goat by staring at it. Glenn Wheaton witnessed the event and recounted it to author Jon Ronson, who wrote about it in his book "The Crazy Rulers of the World." Glenn Wheaton sat down and talked about the goat incident recently during an interview for a documentary planned for release in conjunction with the movie "The Men Who Stare at Goats." His interview will also be included in the "Extras" in the home DVD version of the movie.

At the Special Warfare Center and School at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina they had what the Green Berets called "The Goat Lab." Special Forces medics were required to learn how to treat gunshot wounds, trauma cases, broken bones, and other types of battlefield injuries. It may sound cruel to members of PETA, but they shot goats and subjected them to numerous traumatic injuries, and then tried to revive and stabilize them. Soldiers also slaughtered the goats, learning so they would be able to teach people in third world countries how to butcher and dress an animal and prepare it for food. So they brought in goats from Honduras, and at least one of the goats became a victim of a Darth Vader type mental energy killing.

"I was there the day the first goat died," recalls Glenn Wheaton. He remembers it was in the dead of winter at Ft. Bragg. The Special Forces students had finished their usual ten to fifteen mile predawn run and headed to the woods for hand-to-hand combat training. At that time the 5th Special Forces Group hand-to-hand combat instructor was a martial arts expert named Mike Echanis.

"We got to the training area," Wheaton says, "and there was a dagger stuck in a tree." That meant Echanis was in the Bear Pit. The Bear Pit was hole in the sandy North Carolina soil, 8 to 10 feet deep and 60 to 80 feet wide. The instructor would wait in the pit. The students couldn't see him. It wasn't that he was actually invisible, but he could blend in, using both camouflage and mental trickery, that they couldn't spot him. He was able to adapt and blend into the environment so well that those looking down into the pit just could not see him. A trainee would jump into the pit, and suddenly Echanis would come out of nowhere and be upon him, and the hand-to-hand combat would ensue. The students were certain to endure a severe beating.

On this particular day, Echanis had brought a goat with him down into the pit. As the soldiers fought the goat would scamper and jump about, trying to avoid the combatants being hurled around the pit.

At the completion of the class, Echanis challenged the soldiers: "Where is your mind?"

Then the demonstration none of them would ever forget. Wheaton recalls that the instructor "grabbed the goat by the horns. He dragged him to the middle of the pit, pushing a green stake to the bottom of the pit, attaching the goat to it. Then he asked us again 'Where are your minds?' Michael had recently completed a lot of training in Qigong, the force you couldn't see that moves like a train."

Glenn Wheaton witnessed the incredible feat. The instructor never touched the goat. "Michael focused on the goat pretty intensely," he says. "It started to bray like a donkey or horse. It dropped down to its forelegs; blood began to drip from its nose. About 20 to 30 seconds later red suds began to froth from the goat's mouth. The goat lost its equilibrium and passed away in a fit."

There was nothing done physically to the goat. Wheaton says, "Michael never had to touch the goat, other than dragging him and sinking the anchor in the sand. A demonstration we required he repeat."

They tested Echanis several times under less brutal circumstances. They filled balloons with ink and the balloons were suspended in an aquarium. "He was able to successfully break or rupture three balloons filled with ink suspended in an aquarium filled with water," Wheaton recounts. "He was able to rupture each one of those balloons, causing the ink to contaminate the water."

Wheaton says it was "a lot to think about." And he goes on to say, "as an adaptation it has immediate applications. Could anyone do it, or could only Michael do it? That's what we investigated after that."

Wheaton does not talk about whether this technique was ever employed against humans, but he says Green Berets did study so called "paranormal powers" as part of a program called Project Jedi. What kind of techniques did they study in Project Jedi? Wheaton answers, "Can you be warm when everyone else around you is freezing cold? Can you regulate your respiration and heart rate so that when everyone else is huffing and puffing because you're running up a really long hill, can you manage your own body? Can you keep going when everyone else will stop?


That's what the empowerment portion of Project Jedi was for. You had to be perfectly able to control yourself, because if you couldn't control yourself you couldn't control anything else. So being able to control your blood pressure is a good thing. Being able to send heat to an exposed part of your body by will alone is a good thing. Being able to hear when there is only a cacophony of noise, a single thing. If I turned on a vacuum cleaner and gave a lecture that you couldn't hear, after a while could you hear? You learn to filter your environment so that you can accomplish any mission."

Glenn Wheaton is currently the president and chief instructor at the Hawaii Remote Viewers' Guild. He has been teaching advanced communication skills and mental focus techniques to civilians, for free, for the past 12 years.

"The Men Who Stare at Goats" currently in theaters. There will be a documentary released soon about the true story behind the movie, and the home DVD version will contain interviews with Glenn Wheaton and Jim Channon.


- Dick Allgire
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Video about how pseudoskeptics strangle their intelligence

Postby Nostradamus » 14 Nov 2009, 10:01

At about this same time, a U.S. Army Special Forces soldier was felling goats in much the same manner. Now this story is coming to the big screen.


displace his awareness to remote locations across space and time to bring back actual intelligence grade data using only his mind.


That's a great way to begin a story. Fabricate the events. It never worked.

The military tried for a long time to get things to work. They thought that practice could improve results. Long term efforts were as fruitless as the earlier work.

This movie is a lighthearted look at the effort.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Video about how pseudoskeptics strangle their intelligence

Postby Nostradamus » 14 Nov 2009, 10:10

Not sure if this is the person who wrote what Scepcop copied and pasted. It might be.
Dick Allgire has been training in HRVG protocols since August of 1997, and is now an operational remote viewer, member of MJ001 group within HRVG. Dick is also obtaining certification as an instructor.

His session work can be viewed Here as part of Project Erminmink, Kapitan Man Project, Hokkaido Rise Anomaly, and numerous other validation targets under the heading MJ001 and in the regular sessions posted on the website. Dick is a television newscaster at KITV, the ABC affiliate in Honolulu.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Video about how pseudoskeptics strangle their intelligence

Postby Nostradamus » 14 Nov 2009, 10:14

Now for a long winded rebuttal. Yup. It's copy and paste time.

McMoneagle was just one of the alleged remote viewers studied by Targ and Puthoff at the Stanford Research Institute (later called SRI International and neither having any connection to Stanford University). Puthoff left SRI in 1985 and Targ left in 1982 (Marks 2000: 71). May joined SRI in 1975 and became the director of the program when Puthoff left. In 1990 the program moved to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), a major defense contractor and a Fortune 500 company with some 38,000 employees worldwide (Marks: 73). Star Gate was stopped because the government determined that even if there is some truth to the remote viewing claims, it is too unreliable to be of any military value. One important research finding was that “neither practice nor training consistently improved remote-viewing ability” (Radin 1997: 102).

Dean Radin in The Conscious Universe says that the remote viewing program “finally wound down in 1994.” He doesn’t mention that the CIA shut it down because they were convinced that after 24 years of experiments it was clear that remote viewing was of no practical value to the intelligence community (Marks: 75). The CIA report noted that in the case of remote viewing there was a large amount of irrelevant, erroneous information that was provided and there was little agreement observed among the reports of the remote viewers (Marks: 77). Radin doesn’t mention that May objected to the CIA report because it didn’t make note of the fact that he had four independent replications of remote viewing. May didn’t publicize the fact, however, that there were also at least six reported instances of failed replication.

McMoneagle was in the army for 16 years, apparently serving some or most of that time as a psychic spy. He claims he helped locate the U.S. hostages taken by Iran during Jimmy Carter's presidency. Now a civilian psychic consultant, McMoneagle has turned his talents to more public feats, the kind that local TV news shows like to feature along with local university professors like Dr. Utts providing sound bites. On the TV 10 news show she held up a drawing allegedly done by McMoneagle and declared that it was done by remote viewing. Another scientific researcher had gone to the Altamont pass, known for its miles of funny-looking windmills on acres of rolling hills. McMoneagle tried to use his psychic powers to "see" what the researcher at Altamont was seeing and then draw what he was seeing. The sum total of the evidence for the value of psychic spying presented by the Sacramento news team consisted of one drawing and Dr. Utts's word that it looks like the Altamont pass. I will testify that in fact the drawing did have a resemblance to the Altamont pass. It also had a strong resemblance to ships on a stormy sea, to debris in a cloudy sky, to pigeon art, and to dozens of other things.


There were hundreds, maybe thousands of trials, where a remote viewer would draw something and give a verbal report of what he was seeing. It would be highly unusual if there weren’t some that would seem very accurate for the targets. Since it was never required for success that the drawing or report be exact, it is always possible that an ambiguous image will be seen as fitting a particular target especially if the judge knows what the target is! Furthermore, we have only May's word for it that the very detailed descriptions that were spot on, were as he says they were. He hasn't made his data public.


For more of this look at http://www.skepdic.com/remotevw.html
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Video about how pseudoskeptics strangle their intelligence

Postby Eteponge » 25 Nov 2009, 07:50

Video of Joe McMoneagle being put to the test in a Remote Viewing Experiment ...

http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/media/videoc ... 2Test.html

They show some of his best hits, his actual remote viewed drawings compared with the actual area he remote viewed. Some are very compelling, as is the drawing he procures in this experiment of the target area in this test.

The person you quoted stating, "I will testify that in fact the drawing did have a resemblance to the Altamont pass. It also had a strong resemblance to ships on a stormy sea, to debris in a cloudy sky, to pigeon art, and to dozens of other things." Is typical debunker rhetoric, that only works if you haven't actually examined the drawing in question compared with the location. Much like how debunkers strawman ALL psychic detective cases as just being super vague "I see water, I see trees" BS, when if you actually read the data, it's far more complicated and detailed than that. This type of debunking only works if you haven't actually examined the data itself. It's pulling a fast one, catering to an audience that already believes it's BS, therefore no reason the fact check the debunker's claims.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: Video about how pseudoskeptics strangle their intelligence

Postby Nostradamus » 25 Nov 2009, 09:14

Is typical debunker rhetoric, that only works if you haven't actually examined the drawing in question compared with the location. Much like how debunkers strawman ALL psychic detective cases as just being super vague "I see water, I see trees" BS, when if you actually read the data, it's far more complicated and detailed than that. This type of debunking only works if you haven't actually examined the data itself. It's pulling a fast one, catering to an audience that already believes it's BS, therefore no reason the fact check the debunker's claims.


I watched video. I have heard of May. He was actually part of Star Gate. I know of McMoneagle. He too was part of Star Gate.

The problem here is that the hit is based on decisions after the fact. The action after the remote viewing has taken place is an effort to fit the drawings to the scene. The claim by McMoneagle is that 80% of his viewing is correct. That's could be a testable claim.

What I did see in the video is that I think all 4 sites could have been matched to what he said and drew.

1. life size tree house
2. Astro World amusement park
3. ship channel at port of Houston
4. water wall

These are comments made in the video and how I think that any of the sites could have been matched
A. River for lack of a better name -
1. irrigation ditches and a man altered lake
2. Water slide
3. ship channel
4. water wall

B. Vertical lines other lines have curves to them
1. poor fit
2. possible fit
3, poor fit
4. possible fit

C. possible target is on more of an incline
1. tree house ramps
2. water slide is on an incline
3. bridge has an incline
4. there is a wall

D. She's look up so there is something tall at the target
1. tree house - yes
2. water slide - defintiely
3. bridge at ship channel yes
4. water wall - yes

E. Sense there is a bridge nearby meant for people
1. tree house - yes
2. water slide - definitely
3. bridge yes, but not a pedestrian bridge
4. water wall - miss

I ran out of time to write this and will resume later.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Video about how pseudoskeptics strangle their intelligence

Postby Eteponge » 25 Nov 2009, 10:03

I actually tend to agree with the statement of Remote Viewing being unreliable. While you will get very amazing dazzle shot hits from time to time in Remote Viewing, even the best Remote Viewers will also get a number of obvious blunderous misses, get certain facts wrong even if the drawing is overall correct, etc. It's a very mixed bag. Therefore, not very reliable. But you do get interesting cases of amazing hits from time to time, and those are what keeps it interesting.

I see it like a person with rare exceptional musical talent. They may crank out a few amazing hit songs in a row on the charts, but then they will have a string of song and album failures (making their success unpredictable), but then every once in awhile crank out some great chart topping hits again, mixed in with some duds.

If you put them to the test, and ask them to write a bunch of big hit songs, some songs might be great hits, others might not do too well, others might be total duds, and anywhere inbetween. Doesn't mean they don't have musical talent, just means they are human.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: Video about how pseudoskeptics strangle their intelligence

Postby Eteponge » 25 Nov 2009, 11:43

Here is the most accurate, best hit I've ever seen of Joe McMoneagle (it's so well detailed, and the roads fit, the unique look of the target building is accurate, etc) ...

(The target person was in the big building in the upper left)

Image

And here's the best hit I saw in the experiment in the video, that Nostradamus curiously omitted entirely from his critique (maybe because it is an object that won't fit in ANY of the other three target areas, and is sooo specific to the correct target area) ...

Image

Say what you will, but that specific boat could only fit the target area, and the target woman admitted to looking at it a lot while she was there.

And here are the other examples of his past work shown in the video ...

[Target Area]:

Image

[Remote Viewed Drawing]:

Image

[Target Area]:

Image

[Remote Viewed Drawing]:

Image

An interesting one from another video, where he was to remote view a secret soviet location ...

[Target]:

Image

[Remote Viewed Drawing]:

Image

Several Additional Examples from his website:

Image

Image

Those are pretty damn well on target. Obviously got the football stadium place right, and the windmill place.

In one video (the "sub" one I have linked below) he remote viewed a secret soviet factory, and saw they were building a little submarine, with a HUGE submarine next to it, inside the place, which was totally accurate.

Other Videos On Joe McMoneagle And Remote Reviewing:

http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/media/videoc ... b/sub.html

http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/media/videoc ... stoms.html

http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/media/videoc ... atgeo.html

http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/media/videoc ... tline.html
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: Video about how pseudoskeptics strangle their intelligence

Postby Eteponge » 26 Nov 2009, 02:04

Nostradamus wrote:The problem here is that the hit is based on decisions after the fact. The action after the remote viewing has taken place is an effort to fit the drawings to the scene.

Here's a double blind experiment done by National Geographic with Joe McMoneagle that eliminated this problem, where after Joe left the room after he finished drawing and writing down notes, the researcher in the room was given a bunch of pictures of possible target locations, and had to blindly match Joe's drawings and clues to the correct target area among all the other ones. The researcher chose the correct target area as being the most likely fit based on Joe's notes and drawings, among all the other locations. Pwned ...

http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/media/videoc ... atgeo.html

Nostradamus wrote:What I did see in the video is that I think all 4 sites could have been matched to what he said and drew.

1. life size tree house
2. Astro World amusement park
3. ship channel at port of Houston
4. water wall

These are comments made in the video and how I think that any of the sites could have been matched
A. River for lack of a better name -
1. irrigation ditches and a man altered lake
2. Water slide
3. ship channel
4. water wall

False. You omitted specific details (like the average debunker). He specifically said that it was "a river by lack of a better name, and I get a sense that it is *both* natural and man made, so there's probably been something done to this river, so it's been dredged or sea walls, formal walls have been put up of some kind". That would NOT fit the water slide, the tree house, or the water wall at all. Those are not natural rivers with man-made alterations. The tree house doesn't have a "man altered lake" in it, I looked at the picture several times, there's nothing like that in the picture, nor is it mentioned. Regardless, according to Joe it was a man-altered (natural and man-made) *river* (specified twice, and drawn as a river) with sea walls around it.

I admit the other points you gave were obscure enough to be a possible fit for the other locations. However ...

Two other major points you omitted that match the target area ...

While Joe was drawing, a large ship docked in the harbor in the target area, where Joe got, "A very large object, with lots of metallic noise, I don't feel that this is a building."

Image

And of course, his detailed drawing of this object (which wouldn't have fit in the other target areas at all), which he stated the target person kept looking at, and she later admitted she did ...

Image
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: Video about how pseudoskeptics strangle their intelligence

Postby ciscop » 26 Nov 2009, 03:55

guys
really go and check Derren Brown episode on Remote Viewing
is pretty cool.. :-D
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: Video about how pseudoskeptics strangle their intelligence

Postby Eteponge » 26 Nov 2009, 08:17

ciscop wrote:guys
really go and check Derren Brown episode on Remote Viewing
is pretty cool.. :-D

I've seen it before. Doesn't apply. Derren left obvious word hints in what he wanted them to draw in his statements, he wasn't blind to the target concept he wanted them to draw, and they were very basic things, like a boat on the ocean, not complicated. "I want you to sail away, and not go overboard on detail". (Leading them on basically as to what the target is, even if subconsiously.) And on top of it all, Derren Brown's "target" wasn't even a real place, but a generic idea (boat on ocean).

In Joe McMoneagle's case, he was totally blind to what the target was, and the researcher in the room with him was *likewise* totally blind to what the target was. The target was randomly selected among very different looking locations by the roll of a dice, while Joe and the researcher were locked in another room, and the target person taken immediately to the location, without Joe's knowledge, or the researcher's knowledge. Looking at the drawings he did, and the details he gave, it's a lot more complicated than Derren Brown lets on in his straw man presentation. Yeah, Derren Brown fooled a gullible New Age organization's RV session (who have no critical eyes whatsoever) by using word suggestion play in already knowing what he wanted them to draw (and it wasn't complicated, a boat on the ocean), that's like stealing candy from a baby.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: Video about how pseudoskeptics strangle their intelligence

Postby ciscop » 26 Nov 2009, 15:15

you are talking about the
MESSIAH show... when he went to pasadena and tested the "psychics"

im talking about DERREN BROWN, THE EVENTS, and the 3nd one is about remote viewing
is called how to be a psychic spy
he does a few tricks but then..

he tested a remote viewer and the remote viewer got pretty cool hits like the ones you are describing eteponge.... lets just said that the professional remote viewer... got "hits"
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogmyCgWrzZw
[/youtube] thats the first part of the videos
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Next

Return to PseudoSkeptic Fallacies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron