PartSkeptic’s Thread for Predictions and Other Matters of Interest

[JayUtah]

That remark is jaw-dropping. Give me some solid examples of the "help" I am getting?

I've provided several viable statistical models to help you attain a degree of rigor in your measurements. You responded by complaining that they were too long to read. Quit feigning indignance.

 

[JayUtah]

Okay now you are being reasonable. Although you could have left out the snarky put-down.

Yeah, you don't get to rebuke people on those grounds.

There are some key differences.

There are differences even within the same country. U.S. federal courts follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. My state court has its own state rules of civil procedure, which are different. My city and magistrate courts have yet more different rules. And each court has specific rules governing comportment, the filing of documents, and so forth.

My point is not to quibble about the rules of the particular court you're praying to. I have no problem conceding that you certainly know more about the rules of procedure in your jurisdiction than I do. My point, and that of others, is that you can't seem to make your claims of what's going on match the documentary record of the case. You're claiming things happened, or should have happened, that are either contradicted by or missing from the record.

Then, further, you decry the corruption of the court when things don't go your way. But then you engage in behavior clearly intended to influence the workings of the court beyond the merits of your case. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the system is corrupt and you are just as guilty as others of trying to manipulate it, or it is fair and you should take your lumps.

 

[JayUtah]

In my case, the merits were not discussed.

But your story differs on this point. In one version the judge discussed his upcoming ruling with you.

I would say my assumption is reasonable.

It's still an assumption, not a fact for which you have evidence. This is a major flaw in most of your reasoning here. You conclude that various things "must" have happened, but it's all assumption. And then you bristle when those assumptions are challenged.

If you ask people I know I do not try to prove myself.

But I can't do that. I can only go by your behavior here, and I'm commenting on your behavior here. I don't care what you do elsewhere. Here, nearly every argument you affirm is based on your claim to pre-eminent expertise in that particular point. And nearly every response you make to challenges to your claims starts with accusing your critics of ignorance. You have even started manufacturing arguments to stick in your critics' mouths just so you can pretend they're ignorant for having "argued" it. You're going out of your way to do this.

But here I am being challenged.

Because that's what this forum does, and you come here knowing full well what will happen. However, in this particular thread people are not just challenging you, they're explaining what to do to meet the challenge. They're teaching you their skills in a Socratic way in the hope that you might advance your search for the actual cause for your illness.

Many arguments rest on an implication that I am stupid, or ignorant, and am generally incompetent.

No. The challenges you meet here have nothing to do with your general intelligence. They have solely to do with your inability to demonstrate specific expertise on the particular claims you make. Your inability to demonstrate specific expertise when it is narrowly demanded is not a sweeping personal attack.

I supply my anecdotes as biographical information as to who I am and why I feel qualified to make the claims I do.

No one cares. You belabor us with irrelevant anecdotes instead of addressing specific arguments and rebuttals people make. It's not so much that you ramble on with stories. It's that you do so instead of being more attentive. No one wants deep background into why you are the way you are. They simply want clear, concise answers to questions they ask.

I still am concerned about the motivation behind your need to include personal put-downs of me in your posts.

Report any posts that you believe are personal attacks. Otherwise do not complain about it for rhetorical purposes. You don't have to speculate about my motives for posting here. I wrote a post about it some weeks back.

This thread is about my predictions - God inspired and my own opinions based on 71 years of experience. Hence I do not find an exchange of credentials to be a derail.

This thread appears to be about whatever you want to talk about from day to day. At times you simply treat it like your personal blog. But to get down to it, I don't believe you talk to God, and I don't see your opinions as founded upon much past paranoia and assumption. That is not a strategy that plays well among skeptics. You know that, and yet you persist. You complain at your allegedly shabby treatment here, but it seems to be what you're seeking.

 

[bruto]

With regard to "help," I would remind PartSkeptic that the proposed test, which he seems unwilling to accept, would be drastically cheaper than whatever seems to require the acquisition of more equipment. If proposing a test which is not only useful, easy and acceptable, but free is not help, what is?

 

[JayUtah]

Tell me why you think damages were paid and why there was a NDA?

Shifting the burden of proof. And I've made no statement regarding dismantling radio towers, nor have I solicited any from you. Calling me out on random questions you think I'm obliged to answer is a derail. Yesterday several people asked you questions having to do with the documents in your court case, and about the protocols in the experiment we're discussing. Today, in response, you wrote four posts, all directed solely at me and almost completely sidestepping any accountability that was being required of you from the prior discussion.

You clearly have ideas about why things are happening around you. Your critics here are helping you understand how much of that is based on paranoia and assumption. Obsessing over one person is not cooperative.

 

[JayUtah]

The UK doesn’t have a codified constitution, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have constitutional law. The situation in NZ is similar.

Among the many disservices done to Americans by their educational system is the misconception that the United Kingdom "has no written constitution." They mean, of course, that there is no one single document that is the supreme law of the land, as there is in the U.S. and many subsequent countries. But it really comes down to a fundamental difference in what Americans and British want the word to mean.

That said, UK courts can certainly invoke a constitution. In a case before the UK Supreme Court not too long ago, PM Boris Johnson was found to have impermissibly advised Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament, in an attempt to evade a critical vote on Brexit. The opinion is full of constitutional reasoning, and appeals to documents the Justices evidently found to have the force that US courts give the US Constitution. In fact, the opinion even cited Magna Carta, which is sill a component (although almost entirely surpassed) of the UK constitution.

 

[p0lka]

Seems to me that the ability to google terms quickly then reply relies on the internet.

 

[abaddon]

Among the many disservices done to Americans by their educational system is the misconception that the United Kingdom "has no written constitution." They mean, of course, that there is no one single document that is the supreme law of the land, as there is in the U.S. and many subsequent countries. But it really comes down to a fundamental difference in what Americans and British want the word to mean.

That said, UK courts can certainly invoke a constitution. In a case before the UK Supreme Court not too long ago, PM Boris Johnson was found to have impermissibly advised Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament, in an attempt to evade a critical vote on Brexit. The opinion is full of constitutional reasoning, and appeals to documents the Justices evidently found to have the force that US courts give the US Constitution. In fact, the opinion even cited Magna Carta, which is sill a component (although almost entirely surpassed) of the UK constitution.

Quite. Constitutional Law is a thing in the UK and that simply could not be in the absence of an actual constitution.

It is quite fair to say that the UK does not have a constitution in the sense of the US constitution. Or my own for that matter. There is no such thing in the UK.

Nevertheless, the UK does have a constitution.

It simply is not set down in one document.

It is embodied in an expanse of law, precedence and what have you spanning centuries.

You and I have the advantage that our countries got a clean slate to write one for ourselves and even given that opportunity, proceeded to bork it.

Could the UK codify their constitution onto a single document? In theory, yes.

I would rather chew razor blades than be in such a meeting

One would end up with the usual gov solution. One size fits nobody.

 

[Mojo]

I am not fooled.

As Feynman said, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool.”

 

[JayUtah]

Quite. Constitutional Law is a thing in the UK...

And I find it fascinating. As I may have said in another thread, the standard law student's text in the U.S. for constitutional law is 1700 pages long and weighs over 3 kg. And now that I actually opened it, I see that it's part one of some indeterminate number of parts, as it takes us only through the articles and up to the First Amendment.

It simply is not set down in one document.

It is embodied in an expanse of law, precedence and what have you spanning centuries.

Indeed, it's not even from one source. Here we have the one documentary constitution and a pile of court decisions that shape how to apply it in various cases. That's a manageable variety of sources.

I think the supremacy of Parliament is a big compensator in the Westminster system. Congress is not supreme in the Madison-Hamilton system, but it's quite powerful. In contrast, the branches of Westminster government are not coequal. Parliament can simply do whatever it wants, and that constitutes as good as you need. It would be a mistake, I think, to try to encode in a single static document what has clearly -- for hundreds of years -- relied upon a living, moving council to achieve.

In terms of the judiciary, it is worthwhile to note the differences, but also instructive to delve a little deeper. The French system that includes judges of inquiry has its analogue in the American system in the forms of grand juries and preliminary hearings. There is no judge for grand juries, but there is for a preliminary hearing. It's usually the judge that will hear the case, but it may also be a separate magistrate judge. Unlike other systems, a preliminary hearing is adversarial. The defendant is present there, but not in a grand jury hearing. They meet in secret.

In all those cases, the goal is to vet the charges according to some authority other than the prosecutor. The methods are different. The cast of characters is different. But that's what we're trying to do. We want to make sure there is some credible evidence to the charges before we take the step of formally charging someone with them.

And that's what we're trying to do here with PartSkeptic and his radio woes. All we've done is to propose a preliminary investigation to see whether there is value in pursuing it further. Sadly he's trying to complicate it into never happening. What can be said about a system where charges and evidence remain forever tentative and ambiguous? For someone who claims to know so much about how legal systems work, he's undermining one of their key features.

 

[PartSkeptic]

The UK does not have a constitution. Period. One cannot cite an article of a written legal constitution.

I have appealed a case (assisting a self-represented litigant) in New Zealand and I have taken two appeals to the South African Constitutional court (one direct and one via the Appeals Court). I can tell you there is a massive difference both in procedure and in protection (in theory). The protections in the SA constitution enabled a huge advance in settled case law in a very short time.

I speak from experience. Cite any peer-reviewed papers you want, there is a serious difference. One could say that justice in served in any country - but there are shades of protection.

Why try to distort the UK system to be equivalent to the SA system? They are not.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Back to my prediction that the pandemic is going to impact the global system very badly and lead to systemic changes to stop over-population.

I said early on the pandemic would be sneaky and have a stealth spread. That is happening. Did anyone predict that aspect of this pandemic. No. To quote a high-up official "No-one saw this coming". Wrong. I did.

One of the reason I stated for the sneak attack would be so that the elite could not avoid it. In the 1918 Spanish Flu, very few of the elite were affected. That will change. The SA politicians dread getting this. Most are excessively over-weight and probably have diabetes, high-blood pressure and possibly AIDs. We could see a "cleansing" here. Politicians operate without consequence here. They do not believe in the afterlife so they do not fear the long-term consequences. They should.

In addition, there are factors that are helping the spread. When I heard early on that masks were not effective I argued with a group that they were. The lack of masks and the lack of worry about them in the USA is going to impact that country very badly.

While Covid-19 is deadly enough, it is the damage to economies and the social unrest that will make the total effect something that will be a near-apocalypse. When people are dying of hunger, they have no fear of attacking the elite.

We might just see a major war. God gave me no details, but if one starts with the simple message, then an intelligent person can extrapolate and predict knowing how over-populated societies react when under pressure.

From the beginning, my wife and I were wearing N95 industrial masks. Sometimes we were the only ones with a mask. My wife was in a local Woolworths food store with her mask when she heard the manager telling his unprotected staff that he thought that masks were a silly over-reaction. She was annoyed that he was so vocal about it in her presence. That manager is now fighting for his life in intensive care. Although the store now has an excessive measure of protection. Face masks, face shields, plastic barriers, and lots of sanitizing, we will not shop there.

This last week has been bad for me. I have been excessively tired. I discovered that my oxygen feed that I use at night had gotten blocked. It has taken two nights but I am very aware of the difference.

In India they battle to get oxygen bottles. Bottled oxygen is a very inefficient and expensive way to get oxygen. It gets used up very quickly. The flow rate must be between 2 and 4 liters per minute. Do the calculation on how long a small or large bottle lasts. I was shocked. It is hours not days.

I am sending out emails to friends and family on measures which may save their life. Some of it would be branded "fake news". But I know it works and I know how it works. No point in repeating here, although I have mentioned some of them before.

 

[EvilBiker]

Yeah, whatever.

Let us know when you‘ve done the test we proposed and you agreed to.

 

[PartSkeptic]

(snip)
And that's what we're trying to do here with PartSkeptic and his radio woes. All we've done is to propose a preliminary investigation to see whether there is value in pursuing it further. Sadly he's trying to complicate it into never happening. What can be said about a system where charges and evidence remain forever tentative and ambiguous? For someone who claims to know so much about how legal systems work, he's undermining one of their key features.

I know what standard of evidence is required. What I also know that even if Jesus testified as an expert witness I could not win in the Courts of Justice. I am aiming at the Court of Public Opinion to show how corrupt and captured the SA system is. And prove the harm of EMF in that forum.

The tests will happen. On my own time and terms. And not because of attempts here to pressure me by shaming and taunts.

I do not need a double blind test to know the radiation affects me and how. You guys do. But even then you have been explicit about not accepting the results for a number of reasons - even before the tests are done. I have a long term plan and will follow that. The negativity on this thread has taught me just how biased humankind can be - and for the most part, is. The polarization is amazing. Facts do not matter. Just make them up as counter-arguments. Attack and slander anyone with a different opinion.

I now think that EMFs have affected the world much more than it realizes. People do not understand the changes. They know something is wrong. They blame everything but EMFs. People are stressed and depressed. Their thinking is negative. Their logic is impaired. Their physical health is declining. Hence the need for a God created "clean-up".

 

[Pixel42]

A Telco built a cell tower without the necessary permissions and in violation of regulations and, after community action, removed it and payed (NDA protected) damages. So far, so unsurprising. Unless there's a good reason to think any of it was connected to health issues related to EMF (and no, the OP's suspicions and beliefs are not a good reason) it's off topic for this thread.

Discussions about the constitutions of different countries are also off topic.

So yes, let us by all means get back on topic.

Have you done the dry run yet, PartSkeptic?

Are you ever going to answer the polite questions as to how and why you apparently plan to incorporate instrumental measurements into the simple blind test protocol needed to establish if your claim to be able to tell whether or not the wifi is on or off is correct? Note it doesn't matter if you can't tell every time, a hit rate better than chance is all that's required to justify further, more rigorous, testing.

 

[Pixel42]

I do not need a double blind test to know the radiation affects me and how.

Of course you do. If you were really as smart and knowledgeable as you keep telling us you are you would understand why.

 

[Mojo]

I know what standard of evidence is required. What I also know that even if Jesus testified as an expert witness I could not win in the Courts of Justice.

How would the expert evidence of a carpenter be relevant?

I am aiming at the Court of Public Opinion to show how corrupt and captured the SA system is. And prove the harm of EMF in that forum.

You’re aiming for a forum that is susceptible to propaganda rather than evidence.

 

[Mojo]

I do not need a double blind test to know the radiation affects me and how.

See the quotation from Feynman above.[/quote]

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I am not fooled. I know the standard of evidence required for court. I just had no idea that a judge would make decisions that flew in the face of what he was presented with.

Not supported by the court documents, and directly contradicting your other claim about how 'impressed' the judge was in your secret meeting with him, in which he said he was going to order the tower shut down before the hearing had even started.

Some-one told me I should have had the police witness my test of the tower being on illegally. Since when does a citizen require evidence to be on the same standard as a murder trial. Even there, they accept witness testimony.

Possibly because you rejected all the testimony showing the tower was powered off, including a statement from the electricity company proving no power was used on those days.
Once again, you seem to assume that if you claim something, it is automatically true, and does not require any supporting evidence. If anyone contradicts you, you simply refuse to accept their evidence, for no reason other than you don't like it.
I think it only fair that both sides of this case should be help accountable to the same standards of argument and evidence. Being asked to support your claims with evidence is entirely reasonable.

But I have been "helped" by the way the Respondents went about it. The evidence trail is quite clear, and they cannot hide it.

Great. Then show where that evidence trail is in the documents you linked to.

There is only one reason to turn on the tower illegally and then try to cover it up. Tell me why you think they did it? If you try to tell me they did not turn it on, then you are not helping - just throwing doubt where there is none.

No. You claim, without evidence, that the tower was turned on, and then expect others to simply believe you and provide reasons why this unproven thing should have happened.
You first need to establish that the tower was, in fact, turned on.
Can you do that, and can you disprove the counter-claim from Atlas?

 

[JayUtah]

The UK does not have a constitution. Period. One cannot cite an article of a written legal constitution.

Hm, should I trust you on that point? Or the UK Supreme Court? Which of you two should the world consider the expert on the subject? Since the PM accepted the judgment of the court -- which was predicated entirely on constitutional grounds, citing many of the documents they regard as belonging to the constitution -- and apologized to Her Majesty on that basis, I guess they have him fooled too.

This. This is what we mean. You're literally unable to consider the possibility you might be wrong on any subject.

I speak from experience. Cite any peer-reviewed papers you want, there is a serious difference.

You don't speak from experience. And you don't seem to recognize any authority but your own on the subject. This is why we don't take you seriously.

Why try to distort the UK system to be equivalent to the SA system?

Literally no one did this.