Moderated Is the Telekinesis Real?

[Buddha]

One of my opponents produced a very informative post, I really appreciate that. He/she also wrote that the IEEE article that I mentioned earlier is an invited paper. I didn’t know much about the invited papers, so out of curiosity I contacted my college friend who works as an editor for IET Science, Measurement & Technology magazine. According to her, usually invited papers are written by the leading experts in the field.

See also https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/invitedpapers and https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-invited-paper-to-a-scientific-journal

In rare instances invited papers deal with controversial topics. In this case the editors ask the researchers’ permission to inspect their lab. If permission is granted, two or three engineers check the equipment to make sure that there is no fraud.

Now I return to the discussion.

“Palmer draw attention to the fact that there no documentation regarding measures to prevent data tampering by subjects, and this is of some considerable importance since the subject was left alone in the room during the formal sessions along with the REG and recording equipment” Alcock.

Palmer is not an engineer, so he has no idea what such tampering entails. To start with, you would have to obtain the equipment documentation, which is very difficult to achieve, although not impossible. Them you would have to decide what to do next.

The equipment consists of three parts: the apparatus, the recording device and the connecting cable. Obviously, it is extremely difficult to make changes to a shielded cable without damaging it.

The recording device is a digital circuit. To change its state you would have to interact with it directly. But you cannot do that without special equipment and instructions written by its manufacturing team. However, you do not have access to their documentation, and they won’t send it to you upon the request because they do not want to reveal its design to their competitors.

The apparatus itself has weak points and you could try exploit them. But to do that you would have to identify them first, which is not easy, most likely its schematics do not provide the appropriate details because they are very general.

But let’s assume you had identified all possible entries of fraudulent data. So you make the changes and it appears that you have achieved the goal. But the results would be so outlandish that it would be very easy to spot them. To do a good tampering of the data you would have to experiment with the device, which takes time and effort. But all your attempts will be recorded, which makes tampering virtually impossible.

But let’s assume that you have achieved the desired results during the first trial. This is not enough, after you finish altering the data you would have to return the apparatus to its original state; otherwise all following experiments with other subjects will produce unrealistic results that contradict previous recordings. Once again, you would have to experiment with the device, which is unlikely to go unnoticed.

Next time I will be discussing the Palmer article.

 

[abaddon]

One of my opponents produced a very informative post, I really appreciate that. He/she also wrote that the IEEE article that I mentioned earlier is an invited paper. I didn’t know much about the invited papers, so out of curiosity I contacted my college friend who works as an editor for IET Science, Measurement & Technology magazine. According to her, usually invited papers are written by the leading experts in the field.

See also https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/invitedpapers and https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-invited-paper-to-a-scientific-journal

In rare instances invited papers deal with controversial topics. In this case the editors ask the researchers’ permission to inspect their lab. If permission is granted, two or three engineers check the equipment to make sure that there is no fraud.

Once again, you assume that you are so very brilliant that nobody else here knows what invited papers are.

Now I return to the discussion.

Oh, joy.

“Palmer draw attention to the fact that there no documentation regarding measures to prevent data tampering by subjects, and this is of some considerable importance since the subject was left alone in the room during the formal sessions along with the REG and recording equipment” Alcock.

Palmer is not an engineer, so he has no idea what such tampering entails. To start with, you would have to obtain the equipment documentation, which is very difficult to achieve, although not impossible. Them you would have to decide what to do next.

He doesn't need such expertise. All he needs to do is identify an obvious point of failure in the procedure. And he did.

The equipment consists of three parts: the apparatus, the recording device and the connecting cable. Obviously, it is extremely difficult to make changes to a shielded cable without damaging it.

Wrong. Flat out wrong. And you cannot conceive how.

The recording device is a digital circuit. To change its state you would have to interact with it directly. But you cannot do that without special equipment and instructions written by its manufacturing team. However, you do not have access to their documentation, and they won’t send it to you upon the request because they do not want to reveal its design to their competitors.

Correction. You simply lack the imagination to figure out how it could be achieved. That is an archetypical argument from ignorance fallacy.

The apparatus itself has weak points and you could try exploit them. But to do that you would have to identify them first, which is not easy, most likely its schematics do not provide the appropriate details because they are very general.

And so is that.

But let’s assume you had identified all possible entries of fraudulent data. So you make the changes and it appears that you have achieved the goal. But the results would be so outlandish that it would be very easy to spot them. To do a good tampering of the data you would have to experiment with the device, which takes time and effort. But all your attempts will be recorded, which makes tampering virtually impossible.

Stage magicians spend countless hours practicing. So do con men.

But let’s assume that you have achieved the desired results during the first trial. This is not enough, after you finish altering the data you would have to return the apparatus to its original state; otherwise all following experiments with other subjects will produce unrealistic results that contradict previous recordings. Once again, you would have to experiment with the device, which is unlikely to go unnoticed.

And back you go to an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Next time I will be discussing the Palmer article.

Oh yet more joy.

 

[aleCcowaN]

One of my opponents produced a very informative post, I really appreciate that. He/she also wrote that the IEEE article that I mentioned earlier is an invited paper. I didn’t know much about the invited papers, so out of curiosity I contacted my college friend who works as an editor for IET Science, Measurement & Technology magazine. According to her, usually invited papers are written by the leading experts in the field.

See also https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/invitedpapers and https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-inv...ntific-journal

In rare instances invited papers deal with controversial topics. In this case the editors ask the researchers’ permission to inspect their lab. If permission is granted, two or three engineers check the equipment to make sure that there is no fraud.

Now I return to the discussion.

“Palmer draw attention to the fact that there no documentation regarding measures to prevent data tampering by subjects, and this is of some considerable importance since the subject was left alone in the room during the formal sessions along with the REG and recording equipment” Alcock.

Palmer is not an engineer, so he has no idea what such tampering entails. To start with, you would have to obtain the equipment documentation, which is very difficult to achieve, although not impossible. Them you would have to decide what to do next.

[blah blah, blahblahblah]

[blah blah, blahblahblah]

Jeffers' !!! You can't manage Jeffers' !!!

[singsongily]You can't manage Jeffers' !!!!!![/singsongily]

 

[JayUtah]

I didn’t know much about the invited papers...

Correct, which is why you wrongly assumed it was peer-reviewed and therefore was endorsed as valid science.

Now I return to the discussion.

After not having addressed the issue. You Googled up a bunch of irrelevant material to make it seem like you weren't as ignorant as you clearly are about scholarly practice. You claim to have a master's degree and yet you don't know about how writing happens in journals? Jahn's article was not peer-reviewed, as you originally claimed, and it was not published by IEEE with the intent to let it stand as science. You're trying to distract from having to admit you made a mistake about what we could infer from the circumstances of publication.

Palmer is not an engineer, so he has no idea what such tampering entails.

Whereas you somehow do? The men you're accusing of incompetence had long, highly visible careers as professional scholars and experimenters in fields that invariably involve apparatus, while you're a lowly data analyst with no demonstrable understanding of experimental science and a history of professing knowledge you don't have.

No, this is just your standard claim of being so much smarter than everyone else. Everyone who challenges you somehow never seems to have just the right credentials, despite their ability to argue rings around you and/or be published on the world stage. We discovered in the reincarnation thread that you are the one who knows little if anything about empirical controls and nothing at all about human-subjects research. Your argument from (pretended) authority has grown so very thin.

To start with, you would have to...

Straw man.

The controls suggested by Dr. Palmer and echoed by Dr. Alcock would have been appropriate regardless of how easy or difficult you imagine the process of tampering to be. The problem for the empiricism is that their protocol does not allow them categorically to reject such things as tampering in order to explain the data. Since they didn't control for it, it is a confounding variable, whether you can figure out how it may have been done or not. Controls preclude possibilities entirely so that we don't have to speculate about method.

And as to your speculation of method, it boils down to you simply declaring that it would be too difficult for anyone to figure out how to do according to the few ways you can imagine. I can think of more, but it's not my job to think of them. It was Jahn and Boone's responsibility to apply proper empirical controls so that my ability or yours to imagine scenarios that would affect the integrity of the data are entirely irrelevant to the outcome of their experiment. They failed to do that, so there is a limit to what they can attribute the measured variance to.

But the results would be so outlandish that it would be very easy to spot them.

Another straw man. Dr. Steven Jeffers did spot the outlandish results in the baseline and reported on them. As usual you ignore him entirely, probably because you don't have the expertise to challenge his statistics. Palmer notes that the variance PEAR reports is attributable to only one subject, Operator 010, whose results were more significant than all the other twenty-one subjects combined. This can be considered an "outlandish" result. There was no variance in the non-volitional trials. The correlation to a seemingly minor variable could be seen as "outlandish." You agree such results should be expected in tainted experiments, but when they are actually observed you switch to attacking the people who observed them.

Next time I will be discussing the Palmer article.

Please discuss the Jeffers review instead, since it has been brought to your attention a number of times and directly relates to what you're discussing today. You say tampering would leave evidence. Jeffers discovered that evidence. Refute him, if you can.

 

[Myriad]

“Palmer draw attention to the fact that there no documentation regarding measures to prevent data tampering by subjects, and this is of some considerable importance since the subject was left alone in the room during the formal sessions along with the REG and recording equipment” Alcock.

Palmer is not an engineer, so he has no idea what such tampering entails. To start with, you would have to obtain the equipment documentation, which is very difficult to achieve, although not impossible. Them you would have to decide what to do next.

The equipment consists of three parts: the apparatus, the recording device and the connecting cable. Obviously, it is extremely difficult to make changes to a shielded cable without damaging it.

The recording device is a digital circuit. To change its state you would have to interact with it directly. But you cannot do that without special equipment and instructions written by its manufacturing team. However, you do not have access to their documentation, and they won’t send it to you upon the request because they do not want to reveal its design to their competitors.

The apparatus itself has weak points and you could try exploit them. But to do that you would have to identify them first, which is not easy, most likely its schematics do not provide the appropriate details because they are very general.

But let’s assume you had identified all possible entries of fraudulent data. So you make the changes and it appears that you have achieved the goal. But the results would be so outlandish that it would be very easy to spot them. To do a good tampering of the data you would have to experiment with the device, which takes time and effort. But all your attempts will be recorded, which makes tampering virtually impossible.

But let’s assume that you have achieved the desired results during the first trial. This is not enough, after you finish altering the data you would have to return the apparatus to its original state; otherwise all following experiments with other subjects will produce unrealistic results that contradict previous recordings. Once again, you would have to experiment with the device, which is unlikely to go unnoticed.

Tampering with the REG hardware isn't the only, and probably isn't even the most likely, way of tampering with the experiment.

For instance, when and how did subject record which measure of the REG outcome they were attempting to influence in a given session? Given the nature of hardware at the time (typically, stand-alone units programmed for one specific task), this probably wasn't done using the REG recorder itself. I wouldn't be surprised if it were a paper log book instead. All a subject would need to be able to do is wait until the end of the session, after the actual results were seen, to record which parameter they had been trying to influence. Or alternatively, alter that record after the fact.

A surfeit of zeros? That's what I was trying for. A surfeit of ones? That's what I was trying for. A surfeit of repeated digits? That's what I was trying for. Runs of non-repeated digits? That's what I was trying for... Under those conditions after several trials, it wouldn't be hard to reach a spurious statistical significance.

 

[halleyscomet]

One of my opponents produced a very informative post, I really appreciate that. He/she also wrote that the IEEE article that I mentioned earlier is an invited paper. I didn’t know much about the invited papers, so out of curiosity I contacted my college friend who works as an editor for IET Science, Measurement & Technology magazine. According to her, usually invited papers are written by the leading experts in the field.



See also https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/invitedpapers and https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-invited-paper-to-a-scientific-journal



In rare instances invited papers deal with controversial topics. In this case the editors ask the researchers’ permission to inspect their lab. If permission is granted, two or three engineers check the equipment to make sure that there is no fraud.



Now I return to the discussion.



“Palmer draw attention to the fact that there no documentation regarding measures to prevent data tampering by subjects, and this is of some considerable importance since the subject was left alone in the room during the formal sessions along with the REG and recording equipment” Alcock.



Palmer is not an engineer, so he has no idea what such tampering entails. To start with, you would have to obtain the equipment documentation, which is very difficult to achieve, although not impossible. Them you would have to decide what to do next.



The equipment consists of three parts: the apparatus, the recording device and the connecting cable. Obviously, it is extremely difficult to make changes to a shielded cable without damaging it.



The recording device is a digital circuit. To change its state you would have to interact with it directly. But you cannot do that without special equipment and instructions written by its manufacturing team. However, you do not have access to their documentation, and they won’t send it to you upon the request because they do not want to reveal its design to their competitors.



The apparatus itself has weak points and you could try exploit them. But to do that you would have to identify them first, which is not easy, most likely its schematics do not provide the appropriate details because they are very general.



But let’s assume you had identified all possible entries of fraudulent data. So you make the changes and it appears that you have achieved the goal. But the results would be so outlandish that it would be very easy to spot them. To do a good tampering of the data you would have to experiment with the device, which takes time and effort. But all your attempts will be recorded, which makes tampering virtually impossible.



But let’s assume that you have achieved the desired results during the first trial. This is not enough, after you finish altering the data you would have to return the apparatus to its original state; otherwise all following experiments with other subjects will produce unrealistic results that contradict previous recordings. Once again, you would have to experiment with the device, which is unlikely to go unnoticed.



Next time I will be discussing the Palmer article.

Good Christ I hope you never do any work that involves any form of security. Gaping security holes escape your notice thanks to a sad obsession with imagining real world implementations magically match your ideals.

I’d wager any system you designed is riddled with incursions that remain undetected until someone more competent comes along.

My statements are not insults. They are merely observations about your laughable professional claims in light of your demonstrated ineptitude. Clearly, you are either lying about your professional credentials and experience, or your REAL expertise is in fooling clients long enough to get paid and leave someone else to clean up the mess you left behind.

 

[JayUtah]

Good Christ I hope you never do any work that involves any form of security.

Or safety.

They are merely observations about your laughable professional claims in light of your demonstrated ineptitude.

Indeed, he is no "control systems engineer." He may have a smattering of understanding about the mechanical aspects of such machinery, but he has obviously never worked in the field. Endemic to the design of any automation is not merely the evasion of undesirable paths of operation but also the preclusion of undesirable results regardless of how they are envisioned to arise. Or more precisely, because we cannot possibly envision all the different ways they could arise. Boeing ties their hydraulic actuators to the relevant control surfaces with fuse pins to accommodate a stuck actuator. They do not declare the actuators immune from jamming simply because they have taken such great pains to eliminate previously know failure modes.

But empirical methods in experiment design go far beyond simply being practically effective. The science is largely worthless, epistemologically speaking, without them. The significance testing merely establishes that the baseline behavior of a certain variable cannot stretch to explain the experimental results. It doesn't establish what does explain them. That happens instead by controlling for all the other possible variables -- not just the mechanisms by which they could possibly arise, but by simply precluding the result.

Buddha is obsessing over the machinery likely because until today it has been something he hasn't already been caught bluffing about. He probably has enough hands-on experience with computers and data-collection equipment to throw around a few sciency-sounding terms ("Hacking a shielded cable..." etc.). But whether he can hold is own in a discussion like that is irrelevant. The problem is not whether some part of the REG is hackable. The problem for the science is that inadequate controls were in place, and that the experiment protocol was not sufficiently expounded in order to create confidence in the conclusion held after the null was rejected. Buddha doesn't understand that the controls are what allows you to draw the conclusion, not whether PEAR's critics were justified in whatever he imagines to have been their actual fears.

He doesn't get how science works.

 

[JayUtah]

Tampering with the REG hardware isn't the only, and probably isn't even the most likely, way of tampering with the experiment.

Just like tampering with voting machines is not the only, or even remotely the best, way of affecting the results of an election. A far more effective and vulnerable point of attack is the tabulator. Which is why that's what Fancy Bear goes after.

A surfeit of zeros? That's what I was trying for. A surfeit of ones? That's what I was trying for.

Let's be clear what the actual anomalies in the data are.

First, the baselines. These are the runs that supposedly established the unaffected behavior of the REGs such that putatively affected runs would have empirically strong data to compare against. This is, as I mentioned before, an example of good empirical control. Rather than compare the experimental results to some theoretical expectation, they were compared against a measured expectation. But the problem is that the calibration runs were too closely correlated to have credibly come from actual equipment. Dr. Steven Jeffers provides the statistical argument establishing this. As I explained at length earlier, baselines that are "too good to be true" will amplify any variance in experimental data.

As an aside, this anomaly was brought to Jahn's attention, and his explanation is cause for concern. He opined that the operators performing the calibration runs unconsciously willed them to have exceptionally good performance. If so, then they are not unaffected runs and have no value as a baseline. This is where the controls suggested by various reviewers would have been useful. Jahn essentially admits that the calibration runs may have been affected by the subjects being present at the time of the calibration. That alone justifies the controls and invalidates his results.

Second, Operator 010. All the data responsible for significant variance in the experimental data was produced by a single subject, whose purported effect was greater than all the other subjects combined. We do not have to propose that all 22 subjects discovered a way to falsify data. Only one subject produced data that was at all interesting, and that's the one subject we should look more closely at. Nefarious suspicious aside, if one subject displays the purported ability in spades and 21 don't at all, that's a red flag for anomalous data no matter how you suspect it happened. You want more variance across subjects.

Third, volitional control -- which is what you touch on above. The effect only appeared (and keep in mind it ever only appeared for Operator 010) when the subject got to choose which of several available experimental protocols to attempt. If the choice of which to do was taken away from the subject, the ability to affect the REG disappeared entirely. Again, if we think pessimistically, this merely suggests that that was the only protocol Operator 010 had discovered how to subvert. This is an example of an empirical control doing its job. When the effect correlates perfectly to a control variable, you know that the basis underlying the control variable is what's explaining the data. "Operator 010 could affect the REG, but only if she got to choose how the experiment that day would be conducted."

Again, it doesn't matter whether we can imagine how Operator 010 got those results to happen. What matters is that the data point much more strongly to anomalous empirical outcomes that were either uncontrolled, or controlled but ignored in the analysis by diluting them with the aggregation.

 

[halleyscomet]

As an aside, this anomaly was brought to Jahn's attention, and his explanation is cause for concern. He opined that the operators performing the calibration runs unconsciously willed them to have exceptionally good performance. If so, then they are not unaffected runs and have no value as a baseline. This is where the controls suggested by various reviewers would have been useful. Jahn essentially admits that the calibration runs may have been affected by the subjects being present at the time of the calibration. That alone justifies the controls and invalidates his results.

That’s a critical point. The test results are contaminated and invalid regardless of if telekinesis is real or not. There is no defense left for the research.

 

[halleyscomet]

Or safety.

Christ on a cracker. That right there is nightmare fuel.

“Crumple zones and seat belts are unnecessary because anyone in perfect health driving at a safe distance at or under the speed limit and under ideal driving conditions will be able to easily avoid any possible accidents.”

 

[Crossbow]

“Those gifts paid for a small staff and a gallery of random-motion machines, including a pendulum with a lighted crystal at the end; a giant, wall-mounted pachinko-like machine with a cascade of bouncing balls; and a variety of electronic boxes with digital number displays.

… snipped for brevity …

The same applies to this telekinetic experiment, so its data and the scientists’ conclusion are valid.

It is an almost certain that telekinesis is not real.

After all, if telekinesis were real, then there would be people making millions of dollars per year simply by going to casinos and using their powers to rig games like roulette and craps to their benefit. Or these people would periodically win big on Powerball Games and other such things which involve random chance objects.

And since there are no such people, even though such forms of gambling have abounded for many, many, many centuries, therefore it is quite safe that real telekinesis is highly unlikely.

 

[Dr.Sid]

It is an almost certain that telekinesis is not real.

After all, if telekinesis were real, then there would be people making millions of dollars per year simply by going to casinos and using their powers to rig games like roulette and craps to their benefit. Or these people would periodically win big on Powerball Games and other such things which involve random chance objects.

And since there are no such people, even though such forms of gambling have abounded for many, many, many centuries, therefore it is quite safe that real telekinesis is highly unlikely.

Vegan police would take the power from you if you would misuse it .. and anything can be covered up, look at the Moon landing.

 

[JayUtah]

It is an almost certain that telekinesis is not real.

It doesn't even have to be that conclusory. I find it amusing that Buddha happily believes people can affect machines with the power of their minds, but at the same time finds it impossible that a clever subject can figure out how to rig the data in a poorly-controlled experiment conducted in a controversial field its practitioners admit is fraught with prior malfeasance. His opinion of what's a priori feasible is pretty far off in the fringe sigmas.

 

[Buddha]

Then you should be able to cite the opinions of independent mathematicians who support the researchers' claims and can refute the criticism leveled by others. Please do so.

You are not a mathematician. Or at least you are unwilling to demonstrate any proficiency in statistics here. And we are naturally wary, because in your other threads and in your work outside this forum we have seen you happily claim expertise you obviously don't have and can't demonstrate when required. So we have every reason to believe you're lying now too. And you have further assured us that you are impervious to criticism and therefore unteachable. We simply don't believe your ongoing, unsubstantiated claims to relevant expertise, and we certainly don't accept them as an argument-from-authority in lieu of actual direct responses.

You still seem to maintain that the professional experimental scientists who have reviewed PEAR's work are somehow unqualified to do so. You are unwilling to address the disparity in your standards, nor the actual qualifications of real experimental scientists. If your claim is that these researchers have erred because they lack appropriate qualifications, then you should be able simply to identify their errors and show where such errors contradict easily-discovered facts. As it is you're simply insinuating that you're smarter than anyone else who has discussed the PEAR research. That is not an adequate claim, but it is typical for you.

I already promised you that I will discuss the Palmer report, and I am planning to do it tomorrow. I am looking forward to start a mathematical discussion with you on Thursday. Tomorrow I will present my critique of some topics covered in that report.

I am not a professional mathematician, although I have BS in Applied Math. You may not accept my credentials at this moment, but it doesn't matter because you would participate in the upcoming debate if you want to show me how competent you are.

Some mathematicians dispute the research's validity, but, as always, there is no complete agreement about it; some mathematicians support it. Well, I am not going to quote them because I am quite able to analyze it myself.

I am looking forward to pout debate. Unfortunately, I do not have time to present my argument and respond to my opponents on the same day. Please be patient.

 

[Buddha]

As you have done for the past couple of days, you are dealing only with the straw men you have chosen to represent Jahn's critics. You have utterly failed to address a single critic your opponents here have asked you to look at. You are trying to script both sides of the debate so that you can avoid material you known you can't answer.



Is it your goal to prolong the thread unnecessarily in hopes that it will appear to be productive despite your evasion?

One of the members of this group called Palmer a "noted" psychologist, I take his word for it. You already made a reference to the Palmer article, which means that you do not see him as a straw man.

 

[Buddha]

Vegan police would take the power from you if you would misuse it .. and anything can be covered up, look at the Moon landing.

Maybe some people are making money at the casinos the way you described it but for obvious reason they are silent about that. Unfortunately I am not one of them, although I occasionally play poker online.

The purpose of the Princeton study, as I understand it, was to show that so called everyday people have occasional sparks of telekinesis, but they cannot sustain their telekinetic abilities for long; this is the reason why they chose statistical methods to analyze their results.

Then there is Uri Geller, who claims that he has tested telekinetic abilities, but he is a conman who made millions demonstrating his "gift"

 

[Buddha]

Tampering with the REG hardware isn't the only, and probably isn't even the most likely, way of tampering with the experiment.

For instance, when and how did subject record which measure of the REG outcome they were attempting to influence in a given session? Given the nature of hardware at the time (typically, stand-alone units programmed for one specific task), this probably wasn't done using the REG recorder itself. I wouldn't be surprised if it were a paper log book instead. All a subject would need to be able to do is wait until the end of the session, after the actual results were seen, to record which parameter they had been trying to influence. Or alternatively, alter that record after the fact.

A surfeit of zeros? That's what I was trying for. A surfeit of ones? That's what I was trying for. A surfeit of repeated digits? That's what I was trying for. Runs of non-repeated digits? That's what I was trying for... Under those conditions after several trials, it wouldn't be hard to reach a spurious statistical significance.

Please read my post carefully. I already explained why the methods of data tampering that you described wouldn't work. I suspect that, unlike one of my opponents, you are not an engineer so I think it would take some time for you to understand my post, but I am sure you can do it. I am not being sarcastic, you might be an accomplished writer, musician, artist, etc. But you are not an engineer, which makes it a bit harder for you to participate in a technical discussion. But this doesn't mean that you are not an intelligent person, it simply means that you are in a unfamiliar field.

 

[JayUtah]

I already promised...

None of this has anything to do with what I posted. You claimed that mathematicians would accept Jahn's findings and reject those of his critics, supposedly as being mathematically unsound. I asked you to cite actual mathematicians who could back up your assertion. I certainly didn't ask you to pontificate further on those claims from your own pretense of authority.

Some mathematicians dispute the research's validity, but, as always, there is no complete agreement about it; some mathematicians support it. Well, I am not going to quote them because I am quite able to analyze it myself.

No. I don't accept you as an authority. If you claim that properly qualified people support your claim, but are unwilling to name them, I have to conclude that you're lying. You're trying to boil down the argument once again to demanding that everyone accept you as an expert in whatever field you choose to bring up today. You've demonstrated broad incompetence in all of them in your previous threads, so no that's not going to happen.

Name the experts who support you or withdraw the claim that anyone does.

I am looking forward to pout debate. Unfortunately, I do not have time to present my argument...

I've been waiting six pages for a debate, and instead I'm treated to excuse after excuse for why you can't do it today. No one asked you to analyze Palmer. They only pointed out that you pre-rejected his claim because you were ignorant of who he is and what he does. You have assiduously ignored treatment of all the critics your opponents here have cited. I have stated point-blank that i want you to discuss Jeffers, and that predated all your straw men.

 

[JayUtah]

....which means that you do not see him as a straw man.

You brought up Palmer, whom you dismissed as biased. I pointed out that such a dismissal runs counter to the facts. Bringing up Palmer -- however qualified -- when I've asked you several times on a daily basis to address Jeffers makes it a straw-man argument. When you, not your critics, decide what argument you're going to rebut, that's a straw man. You're choosing what criticism to address and ignoring what your opponents want you to address.

 

[Buddha]

I have no time to read "Buddha"'s pathetic excuses.

Let me guess: he keeps ignoring Jeffers'; he claims to be an accomplished something (statistician, mathematician, etc.) instead of a being full of complexes; his replies have little to do with the posts he's quoting; his replies are mainly repetitive; and he argues he has not enough time.

For what ever reason you do not understand some, although not all, my responses. As for being repetitive, I agree with you. I try to respond to some posts that I find interesting, although they may contain similar data.

You might be a retiree , but I am not, so I do not have time for everything I would like to do. Yes, I know, I have repeated some stud that I wrote before, but I find your post interesting so I respond to it on a personal basis.