• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Montague Keen

I agree, the research into paranormal has been around for quite some time, yet to this day has produced no irrefutable evidence. Scientific research usually produces results in a matter of years (usually less), confirming the hypothesis or negating it. Not so with the paranormal research. Why?

I know, the paranormal powers can't be turned on and off at will. However some "psychics" do just that (Sylvia Browne, John Edward et al.). So does that mean that they are liars? If they can indeed use their powers at will, scientists can test them and if tests are successful, it would show us sceptics we were wrong all along. Also whoever was the first to show their paranormal powers would pocket a tidy amount of us currency. No takers so far.
 
Ok - I get it now...

SteveGrenard said:
These case histories are no more anecdotal than Marie and Pierre Curie's discovery of x-rays, the Wright brother's lst flight, the inventions of Leonard DaVinci, Pasteur's development of rabies vaccine, Fleming's discovery of pencilllin, so on. These are old cases of scientific observation . Are you suggesting we "throw them out" just because they are old? Because the people involved are no longer around for you to talk to? I think not. The same is true of these 20 cases selected by Professor Archie Roy of the University of Edinburgh. Roy selected them because they were well documented by credible scientists who could be trusted to give an accurate account of their details. I agree with Miike I may not be doing them justice or providing all the details so if you are worried about that you can search the literature and research them yourself.

But if you don't want to learn from history, that is your problem.
Click to expand...

Hey SOCK-PUPPET. Don't be so obtuse here. It has been stated time and time again - ad naseum - that the Challenge has nothing to do w/ going back to these "Historical" cases, looking at all that “iron-clad” evidence (from the 1890’s:rolleyes: ) and the determining if a natural explanation will explain them.

The Challenge – FOR THE LAST TIME – requires that a claimant step forward and DEMONSTRATE to the Randi foundation in a test that BOTH the claimant and the foundation find acceptable. WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM / ISSUE WITH THIS CONCEPT???????!!!!!!!

You have stated many times in this thread that Randi claims he can explain ALL paranormal phenomena by natural means. WHERE IS YOUR CITE for this statement???!!!!

Either put up or SHUT UP!!!

Barkhorn.
 
SteveGrenard said:
These case histories are no more anecdotal than Marie and Pierre Curie's discovery of x-rays,
Click to expand...

It was Wilhelm Konrad Röntgen (1845-1923), who in 1895 discovered X-rays. Paul Villard, working in Paris at the same time as Marie and Pierre Curie, is credited with discovering gamma rays.

Steve, don't you realize that when you make these glaring errors, nobody takes you seriously?

The list of your goofs is getting longer:
  • You think electrical resistence is measured in Volts.
  • You think that data cannot be extracted from an optical disk.
  • You have never heard of the Inverse Square Law.
  • You have absolutely no knowledge of the most basic atomic models.
  • You think that Marie and Pierre Curie discovered X-rays.
Amazing that someone can be that ignorant and still claim to have been a "science moderator"...:eek:
 
Old data is still data.

Old data is still good...if it's correct. And that's where the problem lies.

A better comaprision would be N-Rays, rather than X-Rays. X-Rays, after research, were proven to exist, and have been incorporated into items.

This particular study has provided us with...well, entertainment I suppose. But certainly nothing worthwhile in the scientific sense.
 
CFLarsen said:


It was Wilhelm Konrad Röntgen (1845-1923), who in 1895 discovered X-rays. Paul Villard, working in Paris at the same time as Marie and Pierre Curie, is credited with discovering gamma rays.

Steve, don't you realize that when you make these glaring errors, nobody takes you seriously?

The list of your goofs is getting longer:
  • You think electrical resistence is measured in Volts...
Click to expand...
That's just too stupid a mistake for a woo-woo to make. Ohm, idiot! OOHHHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!
 
Yes, I am sorry. Meant to say Marie Curie (not Peierre and Marie) discovered the medical use of x-rays, and in fact, she developed the first x-ray machine used medically and as well as a portable unit used in the field during wartime. When I refer to x-rays I tend to think of them in the medical context and credit Marie Curie with this rather than in the physics discovery of x-rays themselves.

In our neuro lab we measure impedance or resistance by passing a micro-volt signal via an electrode into the body and then measure it with a seeking electrode which returns the resistance measurement in kiloohms on a special medical impedance meter (Grass Instruments). I see from this person, who I have on ignore, that he is still misattributing and misquoting me regarding the measurement of impedance (resistance of the skin to a an electrical charge scaled in microvolts) in human beings.
 
Just wondered - I see Luci is addressing Steve as "Dr. Grenard". Where does the "Dr." bit come from?

"Our" neuro lab - well, I suppose there are quite a lot of people around my place of work who might conceivably refer to "our" lab, but it wouldn't necessarily imply any technical or scientific knowledge or expertise.

Just curious.

Rolfe.
 
SteveGrenard said:
Yes, I am sorry. Meant to say Marie Curie (not Peierre and Marie) discovered the medical use of x-rays, and in fact, she developed the first x-ray machine used medically and as well as a portable unit used in the field during wartime. When I refer to x-rays I tend to think of them in the medical context and credit Marie Curie with this rather than in the physics discovery of x-rays themselves.
Click to expand...

But she didn't discover the medical use of X-rays, either.

In three weeks after Röntgen's announcement, the technique was used to help set a broken arm of a 13-year old kid, living in New Hampshire. So, it was not done by Marie Curie, who lived in Europe.

========================
Edited to add:

Marie Curie converted cars into mobile radiological units in 1915, twenty years after the discovery of X-rays. The medical use of X-rays had been in use long before 1915.

========================
Once again, you make a mess, Steve.

Updated:

  • You think electrical resistence is measured in Volts.
  • You think that data cannot be extracted from an optical disk.
  • You have never heard of the Inverse Square Law.
  • You have absolutely no knowledge of the most basic atomic models.
  • You thought that Marie and Pierre Curie discovered X-rays, but later changed it into Marie and Pierre Curie discovering medical use of X-rays. They did not.

SteveGrenard said:
In our neuro lab we measure impedance or resistance by passing a micro-volt signal via an electrode into the body and then measure it with a seeking electrode which returns the resistance measurement in kiloohms on a special medical impedance meter (Grass Instruments). I see from this person, who I have on ignore, that he is still misattributing and misquoting me regarding the measurement of impedance (resistance of the skin to a an electrical charge scaled in microvolts) in human beings.
Click to expand...

No misattributing or misquoting you, Steve. Diezel can back me up on this one...
 
CFLarsen said:
Where do you think Gary Schwartz got his "departed hypothesized co-investigator" from?
Click to expand...
I thought that was just John Edward having a hissy-fit for being cross-examined and then storming out! ;)

No, nothing would surprise me at all with Schwartz. He has no more reputation left to shred, let alone be in tatters.
 
There was a bit about Schwartz in the Mail on Sunday yesterday. Apparently transplant recipiants take on some of the personality of the donor. :boggled: To keep broadly on topic, Keen was mentioned too, as some kind of proof that the dead can speak to the living. Typical nonsense really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom