• 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.

Paranormal detection

News:
I think this test will be the first step in discovering how life started and how evolution actually work !.
Even more the universe beginning...WOW !!!!
 
JackalGirl :
I have a problem with the cheating factor in your protocol, as the JREF are the ones who will be choosing the starers ?.
Also this apply to other suggested protocols...?
 
Last edited:

Jeff Corey said:
I saw nothing invisible.
Click to expand...


Did you notice the cat at 00:41 is searching for something it couldn't see, then looked at TV one more time and finally decided instinctually to get the hell out of that spot.
Hence there is something invisible !!! :cool:.
 
Last edited:
reason1 said:
Did you notice the cat at 00:41 is searching for something it couldn't see, then looked at TV one more time and finally decided instinctually to get the hell out of that spot.
Hence there is something invisible !!! :cool:.
Click to expand...

At which point I think we can safely say there is no longer any doubt whatsoever about the applicability of Poe's law here.
 
reason1 said:
JackalGirl :
I have a problem with the cheating factor in your protocol, as the JREF are the ones who will be choosing the starers ?.
Also this apply to other suggested protocols...?
Click to expand...


Why would you think that?

Another fantasy?

It is your protocol (if you had one) and provided both parties agree, it can be anyone you want.

If you choose the sniper/shooting protocols they can most certainly be someone you know or trust.

However, if they do know you well, I would suggest part of your protocol is a check to make sure they don't switch to real ammo.


.
 
Last edited:
Cuddles said:
At which point I think we can safely say there is no longer any doubt whatsoever about the applicability of Poe's law here.
Click to expand...

Hi,
i don't know about Poe's law, i hope you explain why it's applicable here, but of course i'm not posting those videos in any way as evidence...just for interest.
 
Last edited:
reason1 said:
Hi,
i don't know about Poe's law, i hope you explain why it's applicable here, but of course i'm not posting those videos in any way as evidences...just for interest.
Click to expand...

I doubt that there is any interest in YouTube videos in this thread.

I suspect that most people just want to see if you are actually capable of addressing the issues raised and even make the tiniest effort to prepare a new protocol.

All indications are that you are not capable, not willing and are just dishonestly wasting other peoples time.

When are we going to see your new protocol that you've carefully thought about in your "long post" that YOU indicated was forthcoming from help that YOU requested?

Maybe in your next post?


.
 
reason1 said:




Did you notice the cat at 00:41 is searching for something it couldn't see, then looked at TV one more time and finally decided instinctually to get the hell out of that spot.
Hence there is something invisible !!! :cool:.
Click to expand...

No.
ETA:From rationalwiki.com:
Poe's Law states:
“ Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.[1] ”

Poe's Law relates to fundamentalism, and the difficulty of identifying actual parodies thereof. It suggests that, in general, it is hard to tell fake fundamentalism from the real thing, since they may both espouse equally extreme beliefs. Poe's law also works in reverse: real fundamentalism can also be indistinguishable from parody fundamentalism. For example, some conservatives consider noted homophobe Fred Phelps to be so over-the-top that they think he's a "deep cover liberal" trying to discredit more mainstream homophobes.
 
Last edited:
reason1 said:




Did you notice the cat at 00:41 is searching for something it couldn't see, then looked at TV one more time and finally decided instinctually to get the hell out of that spot.
Hence there is something invisible !!! .
Click to expand...
Yeah - sound.

Species Approximate Range (Hz)
human 64-23,000
dog 67-45,000
cat 45-64,000
 
H3LL said:
I doubt that there is any interest in YouTube videos in this thread.
Click to expand...
Really..what about the following post of yours ?
H3LL said:
I'm not sure if this is going to help but there are similarities with your vague claim:



Detecting flaws in this "test" might help you with designing your own.

If you can find none - You have a problem and major re-think might be in order.
Click to expand...


H3LL said:
I suspect that most people just want to see if you are actually capable of addressing the issues raised and even make the tiniest effort to prepare a new protocol.

All indications are that you are not capable, not willing and are just dishonestly wasting other peoples time.

When are we going to see your new protocol that you've carefully thought about in your "long post" that YOU indicated was forthcoming from help that YOU requested?

Maybe in your next post?


.
Click to expand...
Why are you saying "new protocol" ?....
did you find out that my old one is untestable/uncontrolled...please if you did, post your proof using logical/reasonable/rational arguement, so i can forget about it and concentrate on other protocols.
And please don't just say "it's untestable" over and over without a proof, cause i don't have time for psychological analysis, i'll just have to put you in my ignore list...sorry.
i'm waiting for your PROOF....i'm waiting H3LL.

Also i did post the long post, did you miss it ?
 
reason1 said:
Did you notice the cat at 00:41 is searching for something it couldn't see, then looked at TV one more time and finally decided instinctually to get the hell out of that spot.
Hence there is something invisible !!! :cool:.
Click to expand...
:eye-poppi

Are you absolutely serious?

Are you sure you're absolutely serious about there being something 'strange', 'weird' or... um, 'invisible' going on in either of those two videos?

Have you ever lived with a cat?
 
arthwollipot said:
:eye-poppi

Are you absolutely serious?

Are you sure you're absolutely serious about there being something 'strange', 'weird' or... um, 'invisible' going on in either of those two videos?

Have you ever lived with a cat?
Click to expand...

No...so what's your explanation for the 2 videos not being weird ?
 
reason1 said:
Why are you saying "new protocol" ?....
did you find out that my old one is untestable/uncontrolled...please if you did, post your proof using logical/reasonable/rational arguement, so i can forget about it and concentrate on other protocols.
Click to expand...


Are you actually reading this thread?

Exactly that has been done by me and others and in some detail.


reason1 said:
Also i did post the long post, did you miss it ?
Click to expand...

This would be the long post that you said has been done in lots of tiny bits? How amusing.

The tiny bits all added together are less coherent than they are by themselves. I have checked.



There is nothing in your many posts that indicate any sincerity whatsoever on your part, just some odd, but surprisingly familiar, little game you are playing.

Your entire contribution to this thread is a sham.




.
 
Last edited:
EHocking said:
Species hearing range:
Species Approximate Range (Hz)
human 64-23,000
dog 67-45,000
cat 45-64,000
Click to expand...

but if it's not weird , how do you explain the millions of hits those videos are getting at YouTube ?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom