anyone here able to teleport?
- Thread starter scuzzo84
- Start date
You still been playing hard to get ever since i posted the proof of aliens existance video, i dont think ima ever see 1000$ from you....
The Learning Center Library for Scientific Remote Viewing®
http://www.farsight.org/SRV/index.html
Gimmie my moooooooooney!!!
and go comment on the alien video damnit!!! LOL
The Learning Center Library for Scientific Remote Viewing®
http://www.farsight.org/SRV/index.html
Gimmie my moooooooooney!!!
and go comment on the alien video damnit!!! LOL
That link you provided does not offer any solid scientific proof, comrade. Unless I didn't look hard enough, I don't see anything. Feel free to link me to hard evidence.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_Viewing
And while it's true that the US government (and others such as the USSR) have spent millions of taxpayers dollars on research on remote reviewing and other paranormal activities, that does not prove its existance. Look into Operation Stargate and it's "unpromising" results and that it "has proven nothing and that psychic phenomena have yet to earn a place in the scientific world."
Can you link me? I don't remember the video (or if I even saw it).
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_Viewing
Some critics of remote viewing claim that it is a pseudoscience, and that the experimental evidence is inadequate. Some critics liken remote viewing to dowsing, and accord remote viewing just as much validity as that procedure.[1] And some say that remote viewing is just clairvoyance under a new name, made to seem more credible.
While proponents call the remote viewing technique "scientific", it has only a minority acceptance among scientists. Skeptics contend that an incorrect description of an object by a remote viewer is often considered a "hit" due to small similarities, and that visual cues, extraneous evidence and even fraud under poorly designed testing protocols must account for any accurate descriptions. Positive results have only been achieved in tests designed and run by remote viewing proponents.
While proponents call the remote viewing technique "scientific", it has only a minority acceptance among scientists. Skeptics contend that an incorrect description of an object by a remote viewer is often considered a "hit" due to small similarities, and that visual cues, extraneous evidence and even fraud under poorly designed testing protocols must account for any accurate descriptions. Positive results have only been achieved in tests designed and run by remote viewing proponents.
And while it's true that the US government (and others such as the USSR) have spent millions of taxpayers dollars on research on remote reviewing and other paranormal activities, that does not prove its existance. Look into Operation Stargate and it's "unpromising" results and that it "has proven nothing and that psychic phenomena have yet to earn a place in the scientific world."
Can you link me? I don't remember the video (or if I even saw it).
BTW, my $1,000 is nothing compared to the One Million dollar prize awaiting any man or woman that can provide evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.
And yes it's real, located here http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
After collecting the million dollars from Randi, successors should go to India and contact B. Premanand who will pay 100,000 "to any person or persons who will demonstrate any psychic, supernatural of paranormal ability of any kind under satisfactory observing conditions." Also, "Prabir Ghosh will pay 200,000 to anyone who claims to possess supernatural power of any kind and proves the same without resorting to any trick in the location specified by Prabir Ghosh."
The Australian Skeptics offer $100,000 (Australian), $80,000 for the psychic and $20,000 for anyone "who nominates a person who successfully completes the Australian Skeptics Challenge." If you nominate yourself, and are successful, you get the whole hundred grand.
The Association for Skeptical Inquiry (ASKE), a U.K. skeptic organization, offers £12,000 for proof of psychic powers.
The Tampa Bay Skeptics offer $1,000 to anyone able to demonstrate any paranormal phenomenon under mutually agreed-upon observing conditions.
And finally the North Texas Skeptics offer $12,000 to any person who can demonstrate any psychic or paranormal power or ability under scientifically valid observing conditions.
And yes it's real, located here http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
After collecting the million dollars from Randi, successors should go to India and contact B. Premanand who will pay 100,000 "to any person or persons who will demonstrate any psychic, supernatural of paranormal ability of any kind under satisfactory observing conditions." Also, "Prabir Ghosh will pay 200,000 to anyone who claims to possess supernatural power of any kind and proves the same without resorting to any trick in the location specified by Prabir Ghosh."
The Australian Skeptics offer $100,000 (Australian), $80,000 for the psychic and $20,000 for anyone "who nominates a person who successfully completes the Australian Skeptics Challenge." If you nominate yourself, and are successful, you get the whole hundred grand.
The Association for Skeptical Inquiry (ASKE), a U.K. skeptic organization, offers £12,000 for proof of psychic powers.
The Tampa Bay Skeptics offer $1,000 to anyone able to demonstrate any paranormal phenomenon under mutually agreed-upon observing conditions.
And finally the North Texas Skeptics offer $12,000 to any person who can demonstrate any psychic or paranormal power or ability under scientifically valid observing conditions.
Ive eaten so much acid I saw the air and air currents. Shit Ive fried so many times between 12-20 yrs old like teleport to my evil place where I sprayed my urine out of a spray bottle in someones face and threw a live cat out of a moving car earlier at this same person. Frying balls in in school suspension all day with my friends.
Closed minded as a neo-con???
Wow, sorry to be a skeptic but IMHO it is illogical to believe in things with out some sort of shred of evidence. Not only is it illogical it is also harmful for the human mind.
Now if I told you I could shoot demons out of my ass, would you take my word for it, or would you require some sort of evidence?
BTW, me being Atheist has nothing to do with being skeptical about Remote Viewing.
You would think, that if RV and other paranormal activities were real, that in the last 150 years or so at least ONE person could provide some sort of convincing evidence. But nope, not one...zero, zilch, zip.
Wow, sorry to be a skeptic but IMHO it is illogical to believe in things with out some sort of shred of evidence. Not only is it illogical it is also harmful for the human mind.
Now if I told you I could shoot demons out of my ass, would you take my word for it, or would you require some sort of evidence?
BTW, me being Atheist has nothing to do with being skeptical about Remote Viewing.
You would think, that if RV and other paranormal activities were real, that in the last 150 years or so at least ONE person could provide some sort of convincing evidence. But nope, not one...zero, zilch, zip.
the ones ive met yes.. not u specifically
There is nothing wrong with being skeptical, questions are a good thing!.. i think that its what people consider "evidence" that is the problem.. because somethings can be discredited at the whim of someone elses opinion and some "evidence" can be used as the foundation of an argument.. i guess to sum it up, evidence is in the eye of the beholder.. take global warming for instance, scientists bring up evidence upon evidence that its happening yet it gets tossed to the side as "oh its been happening forever" and theres still debate on wether its really happening.. see what i mean?? i could bring you a video of ufo'z and they would be light anomalies and you would then go on and say "ill believe it when i get abducted" or "ill believe it when i see one".. i could bring you voice recordings of EVP and it would be considered static and u would say "ill believe it when i get one to say my name" or "ill believe it when it gives me the winning lotto numbers" justification is easy to change "evidence" into anybodies favor..
some sort of evidence of course, i dont believe everything i read or hear.. but if u video taped something flying out of your ass that had bat wingz and hornz, even if it was blurry, id give u the benefit of the doubt instead of justifying it as your bowel reaction to taco bell..
can that be applied to your skepticism of ghosts also? it would be hard to believe a priest if he said "me being catholic has nothing to with why i wont watch the da vinci code"
scientists agree that the scientific method itself is INCOMPLETE because it cant test for everything.. people were laughed at for saying the earth was round.... scientists used to think the atom was the smallest thing in the world till they opened that up..i think that people now a dayz have a problem saying "i dont know" so they look for the first explanation of what someone else concludes even if theres a contradicting theory or explanation..
There is nothing wrong with being skeptical, questions are a good thing!.. i think that its what people consider "evidence" that is the problem.. because somethings can be discredited at the whim of someone elses opinion and some "evidence" can be used as the foundation of an argument.. i guess to sum it up, evidence is in the eye of the beholder.. take global warming for instance, scientists bring up evidence upon evidence that its happening yet it gets tossed to the side as "oh its been happening forever" and theres still debate on wether its really happening.. see what i mean?? i could bring you a video of ufo'z and they would be light anomalies and you would then go on and say "ill believe it when i get abducted" or "ill believe it when i see one".. i could bring you voice recordings of EVP and it would be considered static and u would say "ill believe it when i get one to say my name" or "ill believe it when it gives me the winning lotto numbers" justification is easy to change "evidence" into anybodies favor..
some sort of evidence of course, i dont believe everything i read or hear.. but if u video taped something flying out of your ass that had bat wingz and hornz, even if it was blurry, id give u the benefit of the doubt instead of justifying it as your bowel reaction to taco bell..
can that be applied to your skepticism of ghosts also? it would be hard to believe a priest if he said "me being catholic has nothing to with why i wont watch the da vinci code"
scientists agree that the scientific method itself is INCOMPLETE because it cant test for everything.. people were laughed at for saying the earth was round.... scientists used to think the atom was the smallest thing in the world till they opened that up..i think that people now a dayz have a problem saying "i dont know" so they look for the first explanation of what someone else concludes even if theres a contradicting theory or explanation..
There are all sorts of atheists, comrade.
Then you should understand my point exactly.
Exactly. Evidence should be able to be verified and tested under controlled conditions or in other words, empirical evidence.
Empirical evidence is:
• Evidence that can be independently verified through objective means.
• Evidence that can be independently verified by anyone who chooses to do so.
• Evidence that exists of its own accord regardless of one's belief in it or not.
The only kind of evidence that is valid is evidence that is empirically gathered.
Things that should NOT be considered evidence:
• Anecdotal Evidence, i.e. hearsay.
• The Bible or any other holy book.
• Faith.
No, see above. Evidence must be able to be verified through objective means or it is not evidence.
Global warming is not an issue of lack of evidence, in fact there is overwhelming evidence that suggests it is real and the vast majority of the scientific community agrees it is factual. The issue with Global Warming (GW) is political. The only debate is between a small community of people, funded by political institutions, trying to dismiss or water down scientific research that suggests GW. (There have been a number of “scientific” research papers proven to be fraudulent).
A video does not necessarily prove the existence of UFOs because we all know that in today’s age even amateurs can create/alter compelling videos from their home computers.
I wouldn’t say any of those things; I would say we need to conduct further tests, under controlled conditions, to try to verify these claims.
Really? You wouldn’t consider the possibility that I may have created/altered a video in the hopes to fool people?
Yes. I know one atheist who believes in ghosts. Remember comrade, Atheist SIMPLY means the lack of a belief in a god or gods. That’s it.
Excuse me? Please elaborate.
It is my understanding that the Scientific Method (SM) is pretty simple and can be applied to all things.
Click this link for more info regarding the SM.
The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
Why is this incomplete?
Thanks to the scientific method.
BTW, just because scientists have been wrong, does not mean science or the scientific method is not always right. Human error, currupt data, inconclusive data, etc. are to blame. Not the SM or science.
I agree, which is why there is religion and many other beliefs that lack evidence.
.
Then you should understand my point exactly.
Exactly. Evidence should be able to be verified and tested under controlled conditions or in other words, empirical evidence.
Empirical evidence is:
• Evidence that can be independently verified through objective means.
• Evidence that can be independently verified by anyone who chooses to do so.
• Evidence that exists of its own accord regardless of one's belief in it or not.
The only kind of evidence that is valid is evidence that is empirically gathered.
Things that should NOT be considered evidence:
• Anecdotal Evidence, i.e. hearsay.
• The Bible or any other holy book.
• Faith.
No, see above. Evidence must be able to be verified through objective means or it is not evidence.
Global warming is not an issue of lack of evidence, in fact there is overwhelming evidence that suggests it is real and the vast majority of the scientific community agrees it is factual. The issue with Global Warming (GW) is political. The only debate is between a small community of people, funded by political institutions, trying to dismiss or water down scientific research that suggests GW. (There have been a number of “scientific” research papers proven to be fraudulent).
A video does not necessarily prove the existence of UFOs because we all know that in today’s age even amateurs can create/alter compelling videos from their home computers.
I wouldn’t say any of those things; I would say we need to conduct further tests, under controlled conditions, to try to verify these claims.
Really? You wouldn’t consider the possibility that I may have created/altered a video in the hopes to fool people?
Yes. I know one atheist who believes in ghosts. Remember comrade, Atheist SIMPLY means the lack of a belief in a god or gods. That’s it.
Excuse me? Please elaborate.
It is my understanding that the Scientific Method (SM) is pretty simple and can be applied to all things.
Click this link for more info regarding the SM.
The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
Why is this incomplete?
Thanks to the scientific method.
BTW, just because scientists have been wrong, does not mean science or the scientific method is not always right. Human error, currupt data, inconclusive data, etc. are to blame. Not the SM or science.
I agree, which is why there is religion and many other beliefs that lack evidence.
.
Use your scientific method and watch this video and discuss in my thread 2-0 sixx enough beating around the bush i wanna see what you say about this it should be interesting.
http://www.siccness.net/vb/showpost.php?p=1953085&postcount=354
thank you
http://www.siccness.net/vb/showpost.php?p=1953085&postcount=354
thank you
^^I'm not beating around the bush. I started to watch the vid last night (about 15 min) before I realized it's almost 2 hours a long. You're going to have to give me some time on this one comrade (I do really want to watch it).
Also, I'd like to quote myself from that very same thread:
The belief in life outside of earth is not the same as in believing Remote Viewing or other paranormal activities; after all, we already know life does exist in our universe. The question or debate really is whether or not intelligent life has visited earth. I cannot say yes or no based on the fact that I have not seen any solid proof, although I admit I've heard many compelling eyewitness accounts (of course that is only anecdotal evidence).
Although I could be wrong, considering I only watched a few minutes of the video, it appears it is nothing but eyewitness accounts (no videos, pictures, scientific research, etc.). Compelling as it may be (and possibly something I may even believe) it is not “ABSOLUTE PROOF” as you claimed it to be. But like I said, I'm only assuming that's what the video contains. I'll try to watch it by the end of this weekend and post my thoughts.
Also, I'd like to quote myself from that very same thread:
The belief in life outside of earth is not the same as in believing Remote Viewing or other paranormal activities; after all, we already know life does exist in our universe. The question or debate really is whether or not intelligent life has visited earth. I cannot say yes or no based on the fact that I have not seen any solid proof, although I admit I've heard many compelling eyewitness accounts (of course that is only anecdotal evidence).
Although I could be wrong, considering I only watched a few minutes of the video, it appears it is nothing but eyewitness accounts (no videos, pictures, scientific research, etc.). Compelling as it may be (and possibly something I may even believe) it is not “ABSOLUTE PROOF” as you claimed it to be. But like I said, I'm only assuming that's what the video contains. I'll try to watch it by the end of this weekend and post my thoughts.