Moderated Is the Telekinesis Real?

JoeMorgue said:
Yeah that used to be a joke.
Click to expand...

Well, it's a precisely intended reference to The Dungeonmaster, but yes it is meant to be understood with a degree of irony. What disturbs me is that Buddha's declarations of late are trivially refutable. He can't seriously and sanely expect them to be believed. If, as you surmise, this is the trend of the future then I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
 
Last edited:
Crossbow said:
After all, if you do not provide supporting any facts to backup a declarative statement, then it is difficult to consider your statement to be a valid statement.
Click to expand...

It's more than just an argument from silence. He has provided facts that strenuously refute his own declarations of competence. It's one thing to claim something, keep silent, and hope for the benefit of the doubt. It's another thing altogether to make the claim and then conclusively remove all doubt with a subsequent effluent stream of gaffes and gibberish. The tall pole in that tent is, once again, his utter inability to read a simple research paper and determine what its dependent variable is. Not just that, but to vigorously affirm that it can't possibly have a valid one. Dunning and Kruger were clearly onto something.
 
JayUtah said:
Wishing for different opponents will not make me or the truth go away. You have proven you can't understand their articles. We're just waiting for you to acknowledge that fact before we attempt to educate you.
Click to expand...
They much stronger opponents than you are. There is nothing wrong with wishing for their response unless your are jealous of their intelligence.
 
aleCcowaN said:
By the way, I found the paper with Jeffers experiment on telekinesis using a single slit. It's very interesting. It's how I intuitively had developed the experiment, but there are certain potential problems with the setting that make much better his double slit version.

In this experiment the variable is almost one of two I offered for """"Buddha"""" to confirm or deny (Jeffers' gives it a proper name that I omitted), and follows a normal distribution, undoubtedly. A test is performed for obvious reasons. Is it a t-test or a Z-test? Mystère et boule de gomme.

I already sent the link to Jay. Anyone else who'd like to have this link sent, just let me know here or by PM.
Click to expand...
It would be simpler if you provide a link in this post. Looks like you are hiding it from me for some strange reason. Perhaps, the article doesn't exist. This is the only explanation I can think of.
 
JayUtah said:
Asked and answered. You must first admit publicly and unequivocally that you do not have the skill to abstract it from the papers you've cited. I've given you the reasons why this is needed. Please either admit as directed, or show that the reasons are invalid.



Your condescending attitude does not help your position. I do not require your help or your straw man. As a matter of fact, the irrelevant fact upon which you pontificate below has absolutely nothing to do with how Jeffers derived his dependent variables in either of his experiments, or how PEAR derived their dependent variables in their own experiments.

As I mentioned before, your frantic Googling for concepts you may think portray you as knowledgeable is not fooling anyone. Your fate on that point was sealed the moment you tried to directly compare a picture of an interference pattern to a picture of a normal distribution. You said you had no problem admitting your shortcomings and that you aren't emotionally bothered by criticism. Yet your behavior on this point is obviously entirely to the contrary.



No, you simply know of no other way. The exercise we're conducting now is to determine whether your categorical declarations such as this are properly informed, correct, and thus form a foundation from which you can accuse others of incompetence. You don't seem to be cooperating with that exercise, which gives us an indication for how you think it may turn out for you.
Click to expand...
Edited by kmortis: 
Removed to comply with Rule 12


The only way to convert a non-Gaussian distribution to a Gaussian one is to use a power transform. Jeffers has not done it, so his research is a bust. If you think that there is another way of converting a non-Gaussian distribution to a Gaussian one, would you kindly cite an appropriate article or a book?

As an alternative, you could sprinkle the Internet with pixie dust and the answer will magically appear to you. I might not be able to see it though, because I do not live in Neverland.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Buddha said:
...for some strange reason.
Click to expand...

The reason isn't strange. You're being tested on your ability (and willingness) to obtain, read, and understand the relevant research in the topic you've chosen. You're failing the test.

Perhaps, the article doesn't exist. This is the only explanation I can think of.
Click to expand...

So you're going on the record claiming Stanley Jeffers did not write an article describing a single-slit diffraction apparatus for testing PK ability. This is your claim? Do you remember what happened to you last time you claimed something didn't exist?
 
Last edited:
Edited by kmortis: 
Removed previously moderated content and response


The only way to convert a non-Gaussian distribution to a Gaussian one is to use a power transform.
Click to expand...

No, :Buddha, your frantic stab in the dark was not the right answer.

...would you kindly cite an appropriate article or a book?
Click to expand...

We've been over this several times. I will explain statistical modeling to you as soon as you admit publicly and unequivocally that you don't know how to do it. I will explain how the dependent variable was derived in Jeffers' single-slit and double-slit experiments as soon as you admit publicly and unequivocally that you lack the skill to determine it by reading their papers.

This is being done to prevent you from claiming the knowledge I will give you is something you knew about all along. It's to prevent you from continuing to lie about the alleged expertise you use to evaluate the work of others.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Buddha said:
It would be simpler if you provide a link in this post. Looks like you are hiding it from me for some strange reason. Perhaps, the article doesn't exist. This is the only explanation I can think of.
Click to expand...

Keep saying that, sonny boy, so we won't be able to notice you cannot find a simple document!

The variable name in the paper ends with -oid. Let's see if your google-foo abilities make you find it. It should be pretty easy for such a fine piece of decorative neuronal art like yourself :rolleyes:.

The upper side of your posting bollocks is more people asking the link just to verify the article does exist :p. As they mostly will be some of those who almost unanimously voted against you in the poll, I'm expecting the moment you start talking about a conspiracy against your person, as you already did say they're most intelligent :cool:.
 
Last edited:
Buddha said:
<!-- Blatant Ad hominem attack snipped -->
Click to expand...

Dude.

Seriously?

What is this, Jr. high?

You have refused to address the content of the critical posts and have instead descended into a Jr. high level attempt at an insult war. If this is your idea of being the "superior debater" then you need to go back to high school and take some remedial debate classes.
 
To this reviewer's knowledge, no comprehensive critiques of Hasted's
research have yet been published. Perhaps the closest approximation is a
review of The Metal Benders by Stokes (1982). Wood (1982) raised technical
objections to the interpretations Hasted placed upon his "strain" signals,
expressing particular concern about their small magnitude. He also
*questioned Hasted's assumption that the extension and contraction vectors
should be equal for the metal disc experiment (p. 184), and he noted that
the rotation effect (p. 182) could be produced normally because such twists
are caused by shear rather than by extension forces. Hasted had assumed the
latter in arguing for the effect being paranormal. Hasted replied to Wood's
criticisms in the same article.” Palmer, page 187.

Wood, R.H. (1982). On the importance of correct mechanics in paranormal
research. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 51, 246-249.
Tomorrow I will take a look at Wood’s article. Hopefully, I will find it on the Internet.

Edited by kmortis: 
Removed to comply with Rule 12
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Edited by kmortis: 
Removed to comply with Rule 12
I see you're just watching the thread. Don't you have a paper from the 50s or 60s to discuss? Don't you have any paper from motherland? They were very prolific in all things paranormal back in the old totalitarian times.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom