Human Flying

[Indigo Child]

The fact that quantum physics is clearly showing that physical reality ends at the 5th dimension
of the quantum world, necessarily shows that the higher dimensions are not physical, they are mental
and spiritual. Just like the spiritual traditions say as well. This is how all PSI and Yoga powers are possible.
As the essential nature of reality is mind-stuff, it responds to the mind.

As for your positive claim that none of these powers have never been demonstrated, that is your belief.
There are countless anecdotal reports throughout the history of humanity showing these powers have been
demonstrated and recorded, and there are now thousands of scientific studies documenting these powers.
Did you review the studies I just cited a few posts back on astral travel?

[ProfWag]

Did you review the studies I just cited a few posts back on astral travel?

Yes, but I had seen those reports before. The conclusion was that at best, more study could be warranted. Didn't sound like a solid, successful experimental study to me.

[ProfWag]

As for your positive claim that none of these powers have never been demonstrated, that is your belief.
There are countless anecdotal reports throughout the history of humanity showing these powers have been
demonstrated and recorded, and there are now thousands of scientific studies documenting these powers.
Did you review the studies I just cited a few posts back on astral travel?

First, are you aware of the meaning of the word "anecdotal?" It essentially means the evidence is untrustworthy. Hence, you can believe it if you want, but it doesn't amount to a hill of beans in the world of critical thinking.
Second, out of the "thousands of scientific studies documenting these powers," (and I'm assuming you mean the yogi's levitating, making themselves small, etc.) please, PLEASE, show me one. Just one. Shouldn't be too hard...

[Indigo Child]

Did you review the studies I just cited a few posts back on astral travel?

Yes, but I had seen those reports before. The conclusion was that at best, more study could be warranted. Didn't sound like a solid, successful experimental study to me.

It is a convention in all scientific papers to say more studies are required, to study such and such.

I find it interesting how you can disregard something as significant as:

Miss Z being able to succesfully identify randoml;y generated 5-digit hidden target number 25132,
the probabity of guessing this by chance is 1/100,000. In addition to that there is biological evidence
of "unusual" brainwave activity at the time her projections took place.

In the 1979 study, the projector was able to identify a randomly selected optical target in a locked room
with sensors. They were able to identify it correctly in 114 trials out of 197, and during those 114 hits the
sensors in the room detected activity.

In the 1977 study, the cat became calm and passive exactly during the time when its owner had projected
and gone to it.

This is hard scientific evidence. How do you explain it?

[ProfWag]

This is hard scientific evidence. How do you explain it?

Uhhhhhh, lucky guess?
Okay, seriously.
I'm going to start to answer your question by asking a question. Why didn't Tart repeat his experiment? This would have given his experiment much more merit.
Next, the experiment was constructed in such a manner that there could have been more than one occasion where the participant was exposed to the selected number. As such, this was not a double-blind experiment.
Finally, why was a video camera not in the room? How do you know the participant didn't cheat while Dr. Fart wasn't looking?
I know, I know, typical skeptical responses but I would like to conclude by saying that although my contradictory evidence does not constitute "proof" that Miss Z doesn't have remote viewing powers, it just seems that the lack of safeguards in the experiment cannot rule out the possibility of this more simple explanation. Hence, the experiment doesn't appear to show "hard scientific evidence."

[Indigo Child]

Prowag,

Your responses are typical. Rather than accepting the data, and explaining the data,
you are trying to falsify the data by inventing reasons for the participant cheating or the researcher cheating.
The irony in this is, you are not even a scientist. You seem to think that there are a lack of safeguards
that you can think of, but the scientist cannot. It is made clear in the article, that the participant cannot
observe the target. Moreover, it also made clear the participant is undergoing statistically significant
brain activity during those periods.

In the other experiments I mentioned optical targets hidden in a lockedroom were identified in conjunction with activity
recorded during the time of activity by the sensors. In the 1977 study a cat was detected to have become pacified exactly
at the the time its owner projected.

This goes to just prove your inconsistency. You reject anecdotal evidence because you say it is untrustworthy,
in favour of scientific evidence. However, when presented with scientific evidence you reject it for the same reasons.
In other words you accept evidence only that you want to accept, and dismiss evidence that you don't want to accept.

I can fill the next few pages with scientitic studies for paranormal, PSI, yogic powers and you will still maintain it is
not good enough. This shows, as I showed earlier, you are not really rational and could careless how logical something is
or how much evidence backs it up. You're going to stick to your beliefs in the end.

[ProfWag]

Prowag,

Your responses are typical. Rather than accepting the data, and explaining the data,
you are trying to falsify the data by inventing reasons for the participant cheating or the hoaxer cheating.
The irony in this is, you are not even a scientist. You seem to think that there are a lack of safeguards
that you can think of, but the scientist cannot. It is made clear in the article, that the participant cannot
observe the target. Moreover, it also made clear the participant is undergoing statistically significant
brain activity during those periods.

In the other experiments I mentioned optical targets were identified in conjunction with activity recorded
during the time of activity by the sensors, and a cat was reported to have become pacified exactly at the
the time its owner projected.

This goes to just prove your inconsistency. You reject anecdotal evidence because you say it is untrustworthy,
in favour of scientific evidence. However, when presented with scientific evidence you reject for the same reasons.
In other words you accept evidence only that you want to accept, and dismiss evidence that you don't want to accept.

I can fill the next few pages with scientitic studies for paranormal, PSI, yogic powers and you will still maintain it is
not good enough.

You believers really piss me off sometimes. You give me a case study to look at which you say "proves" the existance of the paranormal, but when I turn it right around and show how the experiment lacked sufficient protocols for a valid scientific experiment, you call my response "typical." You're goddamn right it's typical!!! Reason? There is not ONE scientific experiment EVER on the paranormal that doesn't have questionable protocols, results, or could be duplicated. It's not there Indigo Child. Yes, you can fill a million websites with scientific studies on the paranormal, but you can't find one, not ONE, that doesn't have questionable protocols or the results independently verified. Doesn't this tell you anything? I'm not a believer Indigo, I'm someone who doesn't trust people for various personal, historical, reasons. It's my nature and personality. I would appreciate it if you would recognize that about me and accept that I will never accept a scientific study that hasn't been properly verified. For Chrissake, why do believers accept the results of something so freakin' important to humanity but can't be backed up or replicated by anyone? I just don't get it!!!!! Argh!

Sorry, had to get that off my chest.
One final note. I won't be around the forum much over the next several days so if it looks like I'm ignoring you, I'm not. Really.
Wag

[Indigo Child]

You believers really piss me off sometimes. You give me a case study to look at which you say "proves" the existance of the paranormal, but when I turn it right around and show how the experiment lacked sufficient protocols for a valid scientific experiment, you call my response "typical." You're goddamn right it's typical!!! Reason? There is not ONE scientific experiment EVER on the paranormal that doesn't have questionable protocols, results, or could be duplicated.

How do you know it has insufficient protocols, were you actually there? You just made that up.

Moreover, what is a valid scientific experiment? There is no such thing as an experiment that is fool-proof,
no experiment can ever control for every variable, or is infalliable, or produces results that are always replicable.
Some of the most famous scientific experiments have later been disproven with more controls, such as the Michael
Morley experiment.

You are not even a scientist, and you are actually critizing scientists on how to do experiments. I just looked at
the treatise on this web site, and it deal with the fallacies you are making at this moment with aplomb. Review
the following articles:

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page18.htm
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page17.htm


Here is a funny excerpt:

"Again, these claims of inadequate controls are generally just repeats of what Randi says. The truth of the matter is that none of Randi's claimed suspected inadequate controls actually had anything to do with the experiments, which of course Randi was not there to know of. This has been independently reported by Scott Rogo somewhere in the literature, who came out specifically to check each of Randi's guesses about inadequate controls and found them inapplicable under the conditions in which the tests were conducted. In fact, all of Randi's suggestions were amateurish compared to the sophisticated steps we took, suspecting as we did everything from magician's tricks to an Israeli intelligence scam.”

[ciscop]

indigo
just show us a guy that can fly
what?.. you cant?

oh..

well... at least you have seen one right?..
oh.. no?.. you havent?

so the only thing you have is faith ?
ooh..
so bad

here is a guy that could fly

the thing in common with him and with your masters than can fly
is that they are both part of the imagination of the human mind, the wishful thinking.
thats it and nothing more until you can show us evidence of guys flying using their superhuman powers never seen EVER

[ProfWag]

You believers really piss me off sometimes. You give me a case study to look at which you say "proves" the existance of the paranormal, but when I turn it right around and show how the experiment lacked sufficient protocols for a valid scientific experiment, you call my response "typical." You're goddamn right it's typical!!! Reason? There is not ONE scientific experiment EVER on the paranormal that doesn't have questionable protocols, results, or could be duplicated.

How do you know it has insufficient protocols, were you actually there? You just made that up.

I just made that up? I did? Wow, do you really think I'm a dumbass? I learned a long, long time ago not to say something I don't have evidence for. Have you even read Dr. Tart's own words on the case? Have you Indigo? I don't believe you have so here it is. Since it appears you don't absorb anything that doesn't match your pre-set beliefs (typical of someone who doesn't practice critical thinking) I'll help you out and tell you to just read the last paragraph.
http://www.near-death.com/tart.html

[Indigo Child]

Prowag,

No I have not read this report by Dr Tart. I only am familiar with this case
from the first paper. You made the claim that there were insuffient controls,
so it is your burden of proof to provide evidence for that, not mine to go look
for it.

In reviewing Dr Tart's report I can see that he is very honest in both recounting
the method and analysing the results and alternative explanations. However, your
claims the controls were not sufficient is not wholly correct. There were indeed many
controls:

The leads from all electrodes were bound into a common cable running off the top of her head, and terminating in an electrode box on the head of the bed. This arrangement allowed her enough slack wire so that she could turn over in bed and otherwise be comfortable, but did not allow her to sit up more than two feet without disconnecting the wires from the box, an event which would show up on the recording equipment as a tremendous amount of sixty cycle artifact. Thus her movements were well controlled.

Each laboratory night, after the subject was lying in bed, the physiological recordings were running satisfactorily, and she was ready to go to sleep, I went into my office down the hall, opened a table of random numbers at random, threw a coin onto the table as a means of random entry into the page, and copied off the first five digits immediately above where the coin landed.

These were copied with a black marking pen, in figures approximately two inches high, onto a small piece of paper. Thus they were quite discrete visually. This five-digit random number constituted the parapsychological target for the evening. I then slipped it into an opaque folder, entered the subject's room, and slipped the piece of paper onto the shelf without at any time exposing it to the subject. This now provided a target which would be clearly visible to anyone whose eyes were located approximately six and a half feet off the floor or higher, but was otherwise not visible to the subject.

It should be mentioned that Miss Z had expected me to prop the target number up against the wall on the shelf; actually, I had laid it flat on the shelf, which she correctly perceived.


Dr Tart evaluation considers alternative non-paranormal explanations

1) A reaching rod concealed in her pajamas with a mirror. He doubts this.
2) Target is reflected of the clock. He says this is unlikely.

In conclusion there were controls, but it is not conclusive due to simple considerations like not examing Miss Z before hand
to look for any concealed objects. Moreover, a better test would have been placing the target in another room. One such
test was done but Miss Z could not reach it. This is one of the first studies done into OBE, so it does leave a lot to be desired.
However, since this study more have been done with far better controls. You will have to consider those as well, and show
me where the controls are insufficient. I will grant you that Tart's study is inconclusive, as he himself admits.

[ProfWag]

Prowag,

No I have not read this report by Dr Tart. I only am familiar with this case
from the first paper. You made the claim that there were insuffient controls,
so it is your burden of proof to provide evidence for that, not mine to go look
for it.

In conclusion there were controls, but it is not conclusive due to simple considerations like not examing Miss Z before hand
to look for any concealed objects. Moreover, a better test would have been placing the target in another room. One such
test was done but Miss Z could not reach it. This is one of the first studies done into OBE, so it does leave a lot to be desired.
However, since this study more have been done with far better controls. You will have to consider those as well, and show
me where the controls are insufficient. I will grant you that Tart's study is inconclusive, as he himself admits.

You've succeeded in confusing me Indigo. You state in the first paragraph that it is up to me to provide the evidence and not yours to go look for it. I supplied an article and told you the paragraph to read and since I can't read for you, there is little more I can do. To show you where the controls were insufficient, any test that is done that could produce a false positive is an insufficient test. Here again is what Tart said that you may have overlooked:
"The second alternative is that she might have seen the number reflected in the surface of the case of the clock which was mounted on the wall above it. This was the only reflecting surface in the room placed in such a way that this might have been possible. Both Dr. Hastings and I spent some time in the dimly lit room to dark-adapt our eyes, and tried to read a number from the subject's position on the bed, as reflected on the surface of the clock. As the room was dimly lit and the surface of the clock was black plastic, we could not see anything of the number. However, when we shone a flashlight directly on the number (increasing its brightness by a factor somewhere between several hundred and several thousand) we could just make out what the number was in the much brighter reflection. Thus, although it seems unlikely, one could argue that the number constituted a "subliminal" stimulus in its reflection off the clock surface. Therefore, Miss Z's reading of the target number cannot be considered as providing conclusive evidence for a parapsychological effect. " As such, this evidence doesn't amount to a hill of beans for skeptics and shouldn't even be discussed amongst believers.

[Indigo Child]

You've succeeded in confusing me Indigo. You state in the first paragraph that it is up to me to provide the evidence and not yours to go look for it. I supplied an article and told you the paragraph to read and since I can't read for you, there is little more I can do.

There is nothing to be confused about. You had made the claim of insufficient controls even before providing me
the article. This is why I said you should have provided it before when you made the claim. Please get into the
habit of giving evidence for every claim you make.

Here again is what Tart said that you may have overlooked:

I have not overlooked it, but you seem to have overlooked what I said in my previous post. I mentioned
both explanations Tart gives of possible hidden reaching rods with mirrors and the target being reflected
of the clock(which was tested, and they found they could only see it with a flashlight). I agreed with you
it was inconclusive for this reason. This could have been easily ruled out had Tart examined Miss Z before
for any concealed objects.
Anyway, this is not the only study I cited for positive evidence for OBE. I told you I will grant you this one,
now that I have reviewed Tart's report, but you will have to show me if there are insufficient controls in the
others I cited as well.

[caniswalensis]

Please get into the habit of giving evidence for every claim you make.

AMEN! I wish every person would follow your sugesstion, IC!

[ciscop]

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
that was so funny Indigo
i was about to suggest the same thing to you

could you please show us a guy flying?
no? just theories and wishfull thinking?