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.

Re: Video about how pseudoskeptics strangle their intelligence

Postby Eteponge » 26 Nov 2009, 17:32

ciscop wrote: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

Okay I watched it. Then I googled this "Remote Viewer" Dr. Karr and didn't get jack shit except for Derren Brown's video segment with him. So much for a "Famous Remote Viewer". This "Dr. Karr" character took an hour and a half to make the drawings and notes, and most of them were indeed very general statements, and very ink blottish drawings.

As for Joe McMoneagle, he always took less than 30 minutes (that's the max time he'd limit himself), and he drew much more structured complex stuff and gave much more detailed notes than the guy in the video. Compare the vaguely drawn "fountain" and many super general notes given in the Derren Brown video with Joe McMoneagle's drawings and descriptions in comparison to the target area, especially his best hit at the top of this page. Combine it with the fact that the researcher in the National Geographic video segment with Joe McMoneagle was able to connect his drawings and clues to the correct target area (among many possible ones), before the target area was revealed to him.
"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 » 02 Dec 2009, 09:12

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) ...


I did not omit that issue. I never got back to finishing off the video. I don't think it's a particularly good hit. Back then I didn't think it was a particularly good hit. An acute angle is hardly a good hit. The buoys have than shape as do the struts in the water slide. The water slide has hundreds of those shapes.
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 » 02 Dec 2009, 09:24

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."


We'll just have to disagree here. I see a lot of fitting to the scene.

I admit I'm an average debunker. If I had more knowledge of this person and more to see than 1 video which appears predisposed to support this claim, I think I'd be able to point out more flaws.

I completely disagree with the water claim. His statement sounds like a Rush Limbaugh claim in which the words support a multitude of claims so that the person can justify a so-called hit. The tree house was immediately next a stream with irrigation ditches which PRECISELY matches the claim. If the mark had been the water slide or the water wall I'm certain I'd see a declaration of a hit from a believer.

The L-shaped building is drawn with multiple lakes and there are none. There are no matching surrounding buildings and there is no indication that the direction towards the city is correct.
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 » 02 Dec 2009, 09:42

I should mention that I did take the time to examine the locations of all 4 hits to see what was around the sites. It's not as limited as the few images of the other sites suggest. We might suggest that with the limited time to present the information, it was necessary to limit the testing of the drawings to the other sites. On the other hand it sure seems as if the video was edited to support the claim of remote viewing instead of taking a neutral position.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Previous

Return to PseudoSkeptic Fallacies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests