Telekinesis
- Thread starter thelight
- Start date
-
- Tags
- telekinesis
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
I suggest those giant Japanese hornets I saw on the Nat'l Geo channel a few times.
They appear to get very angry quite easily and to stay very angry for a long time.
They appear to get very angry quite easily and to stay very angry for a long time.
He would apply certainly, but he needs to develop a dependable demonstration first. Kramer should be so lucky that all applicants take the time to make sure everything works before applying.
I've given all the advice I can, to examine all of the data, form a hypothesis, and test the hypothesis. He's already gone through one cycle (excuse the use of 'might' in some examples, skeptics prefer not to fully rule out that anything might be true or untrue until conclusively proven):
1. Something caused him to believe he (and others) might have this ability.
2. Something caused him to believe anger might be required.
3. Hypothesis A: Some kind of teleknesis ability exists
4. Hypothesis B: The ability will cause an attacking target to 'fly backwards'
5. Hypothesis C: The ability requires anger in the target
6. Hypothesis D: thelight possesses this ability
7. Hypothesis E: A particular trained german shepard has enough anger to trigger the ability
8. He formed a test protocol that included the above 5 hypotheses
9. He performed a test, no trials resulted in success as defined by protocol
10. In evaluation, hypothesis E was chosen as the incorrect one (perhaps the 'something' in steps 1. or 2. guided him to this conclusion, where the rest of us without access to this information may think a different hypothesis is more likely to be incorrect). He seemed to be questioning hypothesis B as well, in considering deflections as partial success. Perhaps he plans to change hypothesis B in the future, although that makes the ability far less interesting and much more difficult to conclusively observe.
11. He has replaced hypothesis E with a new one: A trained doberman has enough anger to trigger the ability. Until he is able to perform a test under the new set of hypotheses, there is little more to discuss. To fill the time, I suggested an examination of the basis of the other hypotheses might be helpful in case hypothesis E doesn't improve the results of the test.
ETA: changed hypotheses to letters for clarity
I've given all the advice I can, to examine all of the data, form a hypothesis, and test the hypothesis. He's already gone through one cycle (excuse the use of 'might' in some examples, skeptics prefer not to fully rule out that anything might be true or untrue until conclusively proven):
1. Something caused him to believe he (and others) might have this ability.
2. Something caused him to believe anger might be required.
3. Hypothesis A: Some kind of teleknesis ability exists
4. Hypothesis B: The ability will cause an attacking target to 'fly backwards'
5. Hypothesis C: The ability requires anger in the target
6. Hypothesis D: thelight possesses this ability
7. Hypothesis E: A particular trained german shepard has enough anger to trigger the ability
8. He formed a test protocol that included the above 5 hypotheses
9. He performed a test, no trials resulted in success as defined by protocol
10. In evaluation, hypothesis E was chosen as the incorrect one (perhaps the 'something' in steps 1. or 2. guided him to this conclusion, where the rest of us without access to this information may think a different hypothesis is more likely to be incorrect). He seemed to be questioning hypothesis B as well, in considering deflections as partial success. Perhaps he plans to change hypothesis B in the future, although that makes the ability far less interesting and much more difficult to conclusively observe.
11. He has replaced hypothesis E with a new one: A trained doberman has enough anger to trigger the ability. Until he is able to perform a test under the new set of hypotheses, there is little more to discuss. To fill the time, I suggested an examination of the basis of the other hypotheses might be helpful in case hypothesis E doesn't improve the results of the test.
ETA: changed hypotheses to letters for clarity
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
No, it's just a bunch of people on an Internet Forum. But we are saying the same thing the Challenge does -- "You say you can do something paranormal? Prove it!"
Stop talking and start chalking.
KnotKnitWit
Student
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2005
- Messages
- 44
The 'science does not yet understand' nonsense has been, and still is, being used by every paranormal claimant since people started investigating such claims. There are many things that science does not understand. There are even many things that appear paranormal that may end up as normal technology in the future. I'd bet my last dollar that repelling an attacking dog with one's mind will never be one of these. That concept is simply self-delusion.
You don't even make claims that have any statistical value. Your claims of 'success' are so poor that I could easily exceed them using only my experience as a dog trainer. Were we to set up matching tests, you using your so-called powers and me using my training and experience, I'd leave you in the dust.
Will you take my suggestion and walk into the wolf exhibit at a zoo and remove a nursing puppy? Without a protective suit? I wouldn't do that but I claim no special, paranormal powers. Using just my own training and experience, I once walked, unsuited and alone, into a junkyard holding an unchained, claimed-to-be-vicious guard dog and ended up giving him a tummy rub. (I wasn't drunk or on drugs. I was just hopping mad at the owner, a redneck, woman-hater who liked to sneer. I won $20 USD and that was in 1965 when my weekly take-home salary was $50USD. A most successful bet.
)Would you agree to do the same thing?
[snip by KnotKnitWit]
Then don't keep nattering on. Just do it. You make all these grandiose claims while not even being able to come up with a success rate that even approaches chance, let alone being greater than chance. Like the Yellow Bamboo, you seem to be all bluster and wind.
I don't know anyone at JREF but I'm sure that I would be delighted to see you fall on your fundament. So...apply. What's stopping you?
LordoftheLeftHand
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2005
- Messages
- 1,188
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,686
Thank for my new sig line.
Remember that the dog has to be provided by JREF. Also, I'm not sure what kind of lawsuits JREF will be exposed to if the incoming attack by any particular entity were not to be avoided..
If I were you, I'd practice by hitting some bars and getting into some fights, and practising deflection/repulsion there. If your success ratio is terribly low, well.. ... you know, you should never stop, since that's what champions are made of.
If I were you, I'd practice by hitting some bars and getting into some fights, and practising deflection/repulsion there. If your success ratio is terribly low, well.. ... you know, you should never stop, since that's what champions are made of.
KnotKnitWit
Student
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2005
- Messages
- 44
Zep proposed the wasp's nest (Brilliant, btw) but if you are referring to my suggestion as well as Zep's, I thank you.
KnotKnitWit
Student
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2005
- Messages
- 44
Thank for my new sig line.
You are most welcome. I am honored.
Ririon
Cool cat
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2005
- Messages
- 2,059
Test protocol suggestion:
Do not use flying animals like geese and wasps, since they have an un-paranormal ability to actually turn in mid-air.
Dogs (police/military) are good, since they can attack on command.
Have the dog(s) attack you from the other side of a ditch so deep that they have to jump to get over it.
Count the number of times the dog tries to jump over the ditch (so that it is clearly "angry" enough to attack) but somehow turns around in mid-air and lands safely but a bit confused on the same side of the ditch where it started.
Easy.
If that number is significantly more than zero, you get a million dollars.
If thelight seriously wants the million, he will now say: "Great! I'll get the dog and gear again, and this time we'll even videotape it for you forum guys. I'll make sure I get some affidavits from the police officers present while I'm at it."
Ririon
Do not use flying animals like geese and wasps, since they have an un-paranormal ability to actually turn in mid-air.
Dogs (police/military) are good, since they can attack on command.
Have the dog(s) attack you from the other side of a ditch so deep that they have to jump to get over it.
Count the number of times the dog tries to jump over the ditch (so that it is clearly "angry" enough to attack) but somehow turns around in mid-air and lands safely but a bit confused on the same side of the ditch where it started.
Easy.
If that number is significantly more than zero, you get a million dollars.
If thelight seriously wants the million, he will now say: "Great! I'll get the dog and gear again, and this time we'll even videotape it for you forum guys. I'll make sure I get some affidavits from the police officers present while I'm at it."
Ririon
I was watching unsolved mysteries last night and found myself very frustrated at peoples willingness to accept 'miracles' simply as that of the work of god or what not, no one paid respect to the evolution of the human body, our immunity to things that in days gone by killed thousands and what not. Added to that the annoying fact of their critical analysis non existant, though we did have a fairly neutral priest telling us yes "we were baffled, so were the doctors" etc etc.
I am noticing more and more daily how people can simply accept something they dont understand as "I dont, therefore no one else possibly could", which is simply closing your eyes to the fact, oh yes, you just might not be smart enough to grasp the concept - yet.
Perhaps peoples unwillingness to admit mistakes on the endeavour for truth is the heart of the problem such as the one we have here?
I mean
a) without any seemingly prior substantial knowledge of psychology or probability, the assumption is "I can repel things" - I propose this is the theory of it, therefore it is observation. I think it, it must be true. Though most things are discovered by ideas turned into experiement through to accepted fact, we dont need to test this as we ascertain from previous experience and known science that this is woo. Its not hard to do so. Maybe after watching lord of the rings and forgetting its a movie you might think so.
b) instead of trying to conduct an experiment to find logic behind this or a repeating, testable, and verifyable pattern - thus data, I assume others will just "work it out", though I have no method to show this works - burden of proof upon others. At this point to approach an educated scientific community with your theory and without solid data and without a testable method - is crazy. Allbeit, I would find it embarressing.
c) Claims that science that governs much of our lives is incorrect, without actually understanding what it is that you believe is incorrect. Accepting that a tried and true method as a result of strict testing and conclusion - though not something to easily understand - is correct, is evident as we walk about and see much of technology and what not. Though I dont understand Thermodynamics - I accept that its method/s is/are true and tested - with an ability to be corrected if such a new improved method or bank of knowledge was found. Many people for what reason is unknown to me, wont accept what they simply cannot understand. Others will just say 'its god' etc etc.
SURE you dont want to believe everything but some things are simply logically proven without the need to understand it to the t^n th degree, because you know its been scrutinized and criticised to get to this point.
A few more could be added from my own thoughts
Regarding the claim here there are a bundle of illconceived preconceptions we could conclude from this but the issue I guess is
a) we offend easily due to breaking a belief system which is what this is
b) humility on the part of the claimant is harder to achieve if its something that is not testable or not falsifiable, but purely something that makes them feel good, or even so, more powerful then another. Exclusive. Special. Maybe this is more a psychological thing im trying to understand here?
c) a logical rational to explain a phenomena is met with disdain - your destroying beliefs and hope after all - without the intention to offend, rather educate.
d) im rambling
I would like a some feedback on what some of you would think makes people switch off to logic. Is it our inability to accept defeat? Inability to be humble?
Hell I played gigs (band person) before and made major mistakes in front of hundreds to the point the band stops. People laugh. But its a mistake? so? Dont we learn from these things to better ourselves and our knowledge?
Im just baffled with the reason of understanding things for some. I dont think I will ever get it. Then again, I was once a believer of all sorts of mad theories. I think though, I was ready to believe and back something totally fantastic, providing there was great proof. When this never came, I too jumped to the "must be a cover up" rubbish. So I can see the same patterns, so perhaps though many moons ago this was, I should not be a hypocrite? Rather try and remember what I thought? Still I always felt that the reality of what I was reading was not quite....
cheers
I am noticing more and more daily how people can simply accept something they dont understand as "I dont, therefore no one else possibly could", which is simply closing your eyes to the fact, oh yes, you just might not be smart enough to grasp the concept - yet.
Perhaps peoples unwillingness to admit mistakes on the endeavour for truth is the heart of the problem such as the one we have here?
I mean
a) without any seemingly prior substantial knowledge of psychology or probability, the assumption is "I can repel things" - I propose this is the theory of it, therefore it is observation. I think it, it must be true. Though most things are discovered by ideas turned into experiement through to accepted fact, we dont need to test this as we ascertain from previous experience and known science that this is woo. Its not hard to do so. Maybe after watching lord of the rings and forgetting its a movie you might think so.
b) instead of trying to conduct an experiment to find logic behind this or a repeating, testable, and verifyable pattern - thus data, I assume others will just "work it out", though I have no method to show this works - burden of proof upon others. At this point to approach an educated scientific community with your theory and without solid data and without a testable method - is crazy. Allbeit, I would find it embarressing.
c) Claims that science that governs much of our lives is incorrect, without actually understanding what it is that you believe is incorrect. Accepting that a tried and true method as a result of strict testing and conclusion - though not something to easily understand - is correct, is evident as we walk about and see much of technology and what not. Though I dont understand Thermodynamics - I accept that its method/s is/are true and tested - with an ability to be corrected if such a new improved method or bank of knowledge was found. Many people for what reason is unknown to me, wont accept what they simply cannot understand. Others will just say 'its god' etc etc.
SURE you dont want to believe everything but some things are simply logically proven without the need to understand it to the t^n th degree, because you know its been scrutinized and criticised to get to this point.
A few more could be added from my own thoughts
Regarding the claim here there are a bundle of illconceived preconceptions we could conclude from this but the issue I guess is
a) we offend easily due to breaking a belief system which is what this is
b) humility on the part of the claimant is harder to achieve if its something that is not testable or not falsifiable, but purely something that makes them feel good, or even so, more powerful then another. Exclusive. Special. Maybe this is more a psychological thing im trying to understand here?
c) a logical rational to explain a phenomena is met with disdain - your destroying beliefs and hope after all - without the intention to offend, rather educate.
d) im rambling
I would like a some feedback on what some of you would think makes people switch off to logic. Is it our inability to accept defeat? Inability to be humble?
Hell I played gigs (band person) before and made major mistakes in front of hundreds to the point the band stops. People laugh. But its a mistake? so? Dont we learn from these things to better ourselves and our knowledge?
Im just baffled with the reason of understanding things for some. I dont think I will ever get it. Then again, I was once a believer of all sorts of mad theories. I think though, I was ready to believe and back something totally fantastic, providing there was great proof. When this never came, I too jumped to the "must be a cover up" rubbish. So I can see the same patterns, so perhaps though many moons ago this was, I should not be a hypocrite? Rather try and remember what I thought? Still I always felt that the reality of what I was reading was not quite....
cheers
Last edited:
Yes, I'm making my move. The very reason I started this thread is to fully understand the first steps. Just need to confirm on a couple of things (please correct me if I'm wrong):
1. Sign the application form before a public notary.
2. State in two paragraphs what I will demonstrate.
3. Make a trial run and bring three witnesses.
4. Take the witnesses to a public notary to sign an affidavit of what they have witnessed.
3. Send the three documents (application form, statement and affidavit) to JREF
4. Wait for JREF's response.
Did I have the steps correct?
I still have some questions and I hope someone would be kind enough to answer:
1. I live in Indonesia. Where would the test take place?
2. I read the FAQ, and as I understand it, I would also be liable for JREF team's travel expenses. Is this right?
1. Sign the application form before a public notary.
2. State in two paragraphs what I will demonstrate.
3. Make a trial run and bring three witnesses.
4. Take the witnesses to a public notary to sign an affidavit of what they have witnessed.
3. Send the three documents (application form, statement and affidavit) to JREF
4. Wait for JREF's response.
Did I have the steps correct?
I still have some questions and I hope someone would be kind enough to answer:
1. I live in Indonesia. Where would the test take place?
2. I read the FAQ, and as I understand it, I would also be liable for JREF team's travel expenses. Is this right?
case sensitive
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 28, 2005
- Messages
- 395
1. In Indonesia if the Jref can find people there to test your claim.
2. Yes you pay for everything. But it can be free if you are lucky of course.
Except for the numeration, your first six steps will provide a satisfactory initial contact, if you do it as you wrote.
You also have to define what you consider a successful demonstration - and what you consider a failure.
Let me rephrase that your 2 out of 13 result which you quoted in your post #69 in this thread will definitely not suffice.
Check this, again, thoroughly:
http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html
and this, as thoroughly:
http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html
Sleep on it.
Then check it again, front to back, up and down, left to right.
To your last two questions:
1. The preliminary test will take place as close to your home as possible.
The JREF does not run the test themselves. They will contact an organisation or an individual they deem acceptably suited for this task. Most likely in Indonesia.
You should, however, depend in this case only on direct information from JREF members, most likely KRAMER, who will process your application.
2. Quite right, you will have to pay any (reasonable) expenses involved in the test. Rest assured, the JREF will not bogart on your checkbook.
But as you "will win the million dollars", as you have repeatedly stated, this should not become a major issue. Or does it?
Last edited:
That's not what we would actually be testing in the beaten-wasp-nest situation. It should be just as effective a test to hold off wasps bent on attacking you coming from any direction as it would be to hold off a dog coming from one direction. AND a lot more successful in making the results self-obvious!
Judging from the earlier fiasco with testing an Indonesian claimant it seems that the JREF do not have a suitable representative in Indonesia.
Please notice that these witnesses cannot be your friends or family. The JREF only accepts "official" persons like doctors, policemen, and so on.
thelight- There is an obvious problem.
Let us suppose your idea is correct. This somewhat odd ability repels only sentient, genuinely angry creatures.
Using a man therefore, we need a genuinely angry man.
I must infer from this that you can only know you have this ability because you have been attacked by a genuinely angry man , whom you successfully deflected.
How can you be sure your attacker was genuinely angry? He might have been merely greedy to steal your wallet and pretending anger to frighten you into doing what he wanted. You have no way to know.
A real, professional attacker- even a martial arts adept is very unlikely to let anger interfere with his actions. He is likely to kill you quite calmly. This is his skill, after all.
Similarly, you cannot be sure a dog is angry. We can't be sure what the dog feels at all. He might be playful and baffled by the entire operation.
Either way- consider the outcome-
1. Attack by angry person / beast deflected by powers. You win $1m.
Good.
2. Attack by non-angry, but efficient man/dog. You lose $1m and possibly your life. Not good.
3. Attack by angry man/dog not deflected by powers. Ditto.
Given the very high probability of injury, I do not think the JREF would seriously consider this proposal.
Let us suppose your idea is correct. This somewhat odd ability repels only sentient, genuinely angry creatures.
Using a man therefore, we need a genuinely angry man.
I must infer from this that you can only know you have this ability because you have been attacked by a genuinely angry man , whom you successfully deflected.
How can you be sure your attacker was genuinely angry? He might have been merely greedy to steal your wallet and pretending anger to frighten you into doing what he wanted. You have no way to know.
A real, professional attacker- even a martial arts adept is very unlikely to let anger interfere with his actions. He is likely to kill you quite calmly. This is his skill, after all.
Similarly, you cannot be sure a dog is angry. We can't be sure what the dog feels at all. He might be playful and baffled by the entire operation.
Either way- consider the outcome-
1. Attack by angry person / beast deflected by powers. You win $1m.
Good.
2. Attack by non-angry, but efficient man/dog. You lose $1m and possibly your life. Not good.
3. Attack by angry man/dog not deflected by powers. Ditto.
Given the very high probability of injury, I do not think the JREF would seriously consider this proposal.