• 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.

carlson test and debunking randi

Hokulele said:
So, you cannot answer my question? Your simple copying and pasting websites continues to prove that you do not know anything about astrology.
Click to expand...

i think i said from the beginning im no expert.
I did the test in a non chalant way cause I didnt expect much from it
 
So if you are no expert, how can you trust the articles you are pasting? What makes you believe that they are correct? If you do not understand something, you really shouldn't be acting like any kind of authority in that subject.
 
Hokulele said:
So if you are no expert, how can you trust the articles you are pasting? What makes you believe that they are correct? If you do not understand something, you really shouldn't be acting like any kind of authority in that subject.
Click to expand...

you obviously didnt read it. It is all about scientific theories in relation to Astrology, which isnt really my department
 
idunno said:
you obviously didnt read it. It is all about scientific theories in relation to Astrology, which isnt really my department
Click to expand...

I am (was) a quantum physicist. People which misuse quantum physic as I read in some of the link, should be forced to eat their own dog food, printed on A4 side, then spoon fed one crumpled sheet after the other.

What is said is meaningless, taken out of context. Nutty.

Idunno you take the small exit and say science isn't really your department. But frankly, wonder this : why keeping speaking of quantum physic, without saying what the quanta of they are speaking ? What wave function ? What energy level ? They aren't using ANYTHING from quantum physic, they are not applying ANYTHING to any macroscopic or microscopic system.

Quantum physic make pretty straightforward prediction. Even in the case of the Heisenberg uncertainly principle, a lot of experiment can be done. But some of the article (I did not read it all) misuse it as a way out to explain their own inability to get results.

The bottom line is that the article you cited (some) were junk. I bet the rest is of the same nature. ETA: No time to read it now, time for bed.
 
Last edited:
I'm still waiting for a (real) apology from idunno to everyone for the following:

- claiming that DrKitten lied about the entire trial
- claiming that I and the other trial participants lied when evaluating the profiles
- failing to thank those who, by participating in this thread, helped craft a fair trial
- failing to respect the outcome of the trial, which he failed miserably
- believing in astrology in the first place
- refusing to learn that astrology is intellectual garbage
- allowing his mind to be so uneducated and untrained that he either can't or won't learn enough science to determine the truth about astrology
- being nasty
- being a bigot
 
9 star ki

this one is easier to test

japanes system called 9 ki. The number used for predictionis the year number, easy to calculate. You deduct the last two digits from thecentury digtis. 1972= 7+2=9 19-9=10=1
The year starts on 4 february.

The easiest house to test is the 9 house of Fame,In fame, being in the spotlight for good or evil.

This year is a 2:

nw north ne
3 7 5
4 2 9 west
8 6 1

so the 6 is in the south the house of fame. This month is a 4 so 8 is in house of fame.
These are the ones I checked so far:
This month:
OJ Simpson is an 8, he is in the spotlight for stealing in a casino i think
other 8s in spotlight:
Percy Montgomery and Jason Robinson ,Rugby players
Pay attention to players born in 1965, 1974, or 1983
This year:
Yesterday a 6 English actor was sentenced to 10 months in jail for using net pornography..
Im checking other 8s, 6s , but i also check if non 8s and non 6s also are in the spotlight:D

One more thing.
If you add the numbers in all directions you always get number 15,whatever the number in the center.
When a number is in the center the 5 or central number is in the opposite direction to keep the balance of the CHI.

The 2 belongs in SW. This year is in the center, so, the 5 is in the NE.
When the 3 was in the center the 5 was in the West as the 3 is the east number in the original Bagua

4 8 6
5 3 1
9 7 2
 
Last edited:
Bickering derail moved to AAH. Please stay civil and polite - and stay on topic. No further bickering or personalising of the discussion please.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
I fail to see where a "system" that shows that public figures (actors, sports, politicians, etc.) may be "in the spot light" has any merit; especially if the trends are shown after the fact.

All your system has done is "prove" what has already happened; Foxnews, CNN, or any other national/world wide news service can do that.
 
Locknar said:
I fail to see where a "system" that shows that public figures (actors, sports, politicians, etc.) may be "in the spot light" has any merit; especially if the trends are shown after the fact.

All your system has done is "prove" what has already happened; Foxnews, CNN, or any other national/world wide news service can do that.
Click to expand...

the point here is that there is an influence.House 9 has the highest energy,thats why it is god for sportsmen:p
 
idunno said:
the point here is that there is an influence.House 9 has the highest energy,thats why it is god for sportsmen:p
Click to expand...

The claim had to do with Fame, not specifically sports figures.

So the claim is that all sports figures are represented by the "House of 9" or does it apply to all those that are famous?

In either case, what percentage is represented by the "House of 9" and is this statistically significant?
 
one of the mistakes skeptics make is to think any chart will do as far as astrologers are concerned. Not true.
Last year i did a chart for a friend. I calculated his rising sign to be Leo. I was surprised cause he didnt strike me as a Leo type. But I accepted the fact, and thought maybe this is all rubbish.Later he told he told me he had been born in Africa not in the continent..which ga ve him the more suitable Virgo ascendant.
 
idunno said:
one of the mistakes skeptics make is to think any chart will do as far as astrologers are concerned. Not true.
Last year i did a chart for a friend. I calculated his rising sign to be Leo. I was surprised cause he didnt strike me as a Leo type. But I accepted the fact, and thought maybe this is all rubbish.Later he told he told me he had been born in Africa not in the continent..which ga ve him the more suitable Virgo ascendant.
Click to expand...

Perhaps obvious to everyone else, I don't see where this answers any of the questions I asked.
 
I agree that the mods should encourage us to stay on topic and stop bickering, but moving bits of a thread can cause some confusion. In this instance, chillzero has left Complexity's message where he lists several things he'd like idunno to apologise for, while moving idunno's reply. In his reply, idunno accepts that DrKitten didn't lie but still thinks the participants could have lied. He is also not sure that the outcome of the test was a failure.

Of course we cannot prove that the participants were being truthful, but I would be surprised if they were lying, since they had no reason to. For those who were sure that astrology didn't work, there was no point in lying: the test would show that astrology failed without them having to falsify the results. For those who might have had doubts if astrology worked or not, and hoped that the test would shed some light upon the subject, there was every reason to take it seriously. And if there were any believers among the participants, who hoped that the test would give positive evidence of their belief, they certainly wouldn't try to mess it up.

The only reason I could see for lying in this test would be if a participant actually believed that astrology worked, but had some vested interest in showing that it didn't. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have difficulty imagining that anyone here is in this situation.

I was in fact a participant. To be more exact: I gave my wife's birth data. We read through all the personality descriptions very carefully, and both came to the same conclusion: none of them really fitted, so we had to agree on the "least bad fit".

Of course I'm not surprised at the result, since I wasn't a believer before the test. This doesn't mean I didn't take the test seriously: I wanted it to be as scientific and unbiased as possible, so that something meaningful could come out of it. The outcome of the test is clearly a failure for astrology.
 
Locknar said:
The claim had to do with Fame, not specifically sports figures.

So the claim is that all sports figures are represented by the "House of 9" or does it apply to all those that are famous?

In either case, what percentage is represented by the "House of 9" and is this statistically significant?
Click to expand...

thats what i began testing yesterday.
I noticed this trend in the past,thats why im doing it.

Sure you see the president in the news everyday.
It is the way people become notorious that matters, like someone who suddenly goes public because of something he did. I noticed that soccer players perform particularly well during this period as this is a very energetic house.
Ill tell later the rsult of the rsearch.
You can easily do it as well. Just check if the people who are suddenly in the public eye are born in 6 or 8 years. But the 8s only count till 7 september when the current chinese month ends
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom