• 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

reason1 said:
but if it's not weird , how do you explain the millions of hits those videos are getting at YouTube ?
Click to expand...

It's funny.




When are you going to submit your old, useless protocol for the MDC?

How are you progressing with meeting the other requirements (media profile and an academic affidavit)?

Have Google replied yet?

Has Rupert Sheldrake got back to you?
.
 
Last edited:
reason1 said:
No...so what's your explanation for the 2 videos not being weird ?
Click to expand...

Okay, now you're completely going over the edge, R1.

Cat video: Do you think that the person holding the video camera is invisible? Can cats sense people or other animals staring at them? Why yes, they SENSE it with their hearing, sight, or smell. Ya think maybe it might've heard some noise from behind?

And as Arthwollipot was leading to, anyone who's ever owned a cat knows that one of their most endearing acts is that they will decide, on a moment's notice, that they need to be on the opposite side of the house, at the fastest speed their legs can manage. That's just what cats are like.

Prairie dog video: Huh? The video jumps from camera to camera. How do you know what's on the other side of that plexiglass panel out of camera range. Further, the little critter is running around through the whole video, checking out every angle. AND THERE ARE PEOPLE EVERYWHERE!

In both cases, you see an invisible stimulus? That's easy - we're back to the dragon in the garage again.


ETA: Prarie dog.... actually the little fella is heading for one of the girls in blue shorts, so there's actually no possibility of there being something invisible or that he'd notice it, as there is just too much consternation on all sides.
 
Last edited:
reason1 said:
No...so what's your explanation for the 2 videos not being weird ?
Click to expand...

I know you have a problem with the language, but you need to understand that "weird" can just mean different. It doesn't mean "eerie" or "spooky" or "supernatural".

There are thousands upon thousands of videos of cute animals on YouTube. All doing animal things. People like cute animals. They click on them and it makes them smile.

You're right about one thing, though. This is just as paranormal as your supposed abilities. e.g. NOT AT ALL
 
reason1 said:
No...so what's your explanation for the 2 videos not being weird ?
Click to expand...
Wait... now you want me to explain why they're not weird?

How about first establishing why they are weird, then I'll go about refuting that. The first video is of a bunch of Japanese schoolgirls going gaga about a prairie dog. I see absoutely nothing weird in that video. Nothing, apart from the general inherent weirdness of Japanese schoolgirls.

The second video is of a cat watching a television. Cats do this all the time. After a while, the cat notices that someone is watching him/her. I'll admit, the stare is a bit intense for a cat. But once the cat realises that the person watching it is still watching it, he/she decides to be somewhere else. Absolutely nothing weird about that, except for the intenseness of the cat's stare.

What's weird and/or unusual and/or "invisible" about either of those two videos? Inquiring minds want to know!
 
arthwollipot said:
Wait... now you want me to explain why they're not weird?

How about first establishing why they are weird, then I'll go about refuting that. The first video is of a bunch of Japanese schoolgirls going gaga about a prairie dog. I see absoutely nothing weird in that video. Nothing, apart from the general inherent weirdness of Japanese schoolgirls.

The second video is of a cat watching a television. Cats do this all the time. After a while, the cat notices that someone is watching him/her. I'll admit, the stare is a bit intense for a cat. But once the cat realises that the person watching it is still watching it, he/she decides to be somewhere else. Absolutely nothing weird about that, except for the intenseness of the cat's stare.

What's weird and/or unusual and/or "invisible" about either of those two videos? Inquiring minds want to know!
Click to expand...

Plus, if you've ever filmed a cat, they tend to see their reflection in the lens and that could very well explain the stare. They're territorial animals, after all. Another cat sneaking up on them unannounced like that would cause that kind of reaction.
 
dlorde said:
i was just wondering how this sniper detection system would work - reason1 walks confidently out into the suspect sniper area, waits for a sniper to get a bead on him, spins to face the sniper, and *bang*, the observers shout "the shot came from over there sir!", and then the military are looking for a body bag and another sniper detection system... ?
Click to expand...


:dl:
 
Last edited:
Foolmewunz said:
I know you have a problem with the language, but you need to understand that "weird" can just mean different. It doesn't mean "eerie" or "spooky" or "supernatural".
Click to expand...

I've used "weird" as "bizarre" or "very strange".
Again it's a matter of logic not words...if you can't get universal language like logic , then you have a very serious problem !.
Also i don't think i have any problem with language...quote the part in which you think i have ?!
 
reason1 said:
I've used "weird" as "bizarre" or "very strange".
Again it's a matter of logic not words...if you can't get universal language like logic , then you have a very serious problem !.Also i don't think i have any problem with language...quote the part in which you think i have ?!
Click to expand...


There you go.
 
reason1 said:
Also i don't think i have any problem with language...quote the part in which you think i have ?!
Click to expand...
You do seem to have some trouble articulating reasonable objections to the protocols that have been suggested, and answering questions about them in plain English...

Despite apparently being pressed for time to formulate your answers, you are still able to engage in all kinds of unrelated banter on side-issues and find irrelevant but 'interesting' videos on YouTube.

You were the one who came here asking for help. You got help, discovered it wasn't what you'd been hoping, and now it seems you're too embarrassed to admit your claim was a bit naive and misguided, and so rather than withdraw and put together a testable claim or, better still, find another hobby, you continue to drag this farce out in the hope we'll all get bored and go away, so that you can claim some kind of moral victory...?

Why not just either address the protocols and questions sensibly and reasonably, or just decide that we won't be able to produce a protocol that satisfies you, and move on?
 
dlorde said:
Why not just either address the protocols and questions sensibly and reasonably, or just decide that we won't be able to produce a protocol that satisfies you, and move on?
Click to expand...

But what about this post, did you miss it ? :
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 applies to other suggested protocols...?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
reason1 said:
Also i don't think i have any problem with language...quote the part in which you think i have ?!
Click to expand...


OK:

reason1 said:
and i admit i'm not good comunicator
Click to expand...

I assumed the poor English was because it was not your first language.

If I was wrong, I apologise.




Maybe excruciating prose can be caused by poor education and ignorance or perhaps irredeemable stupidity. Who can tell?


.
 
reason1 said:
But what about this post, did you miss it ? :
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...
Click to expand...

I replied directly to that post and dlorde has probably read it.

Have you?

.
 
Last edited:
reason1 said:
I've used "weird" as "bizarre" or "very strange".
Again it's a matter of logic not words...if you can't get universal language like logic , then you have a very serious problem !.
Also i don't think i have any problem with language...quote the part in which you think i have ?!
Click to expand...

Well, I could just let the above post stand on its own. But it's so much more playful to hoist someone by his/her own petard.

So, alternately, how about the following statement, posted by a certain "reason1".

As i said before, it's a matter of logic not spelling/grammar, even native English speakers do those mistakes... don't they ?
Click to expand...

"Even native speakers"... That, to my uneducated eyes (just the two of them, although I'm sure you've got a 3rd one going), appears to to say that you're not a native English speaker. And the sentence as a whole seems to admit that you are, shall we say, challenged by the language.

Now are you two separate people, as someone suggested? Or are you just blathering so much that you're forgetting some of the things you're saying?
 
"and i admit i'm not good comunicator"
i take that back, i was being humble, actually i'm veery goood camunikator !.
 
reason1 said:
"and i admit i'm not good comunicator"
i take that back, i was being humble, actually i'm veery goood camunikator !.
Click to expand...

Good! How about using your communication skills to read the thread that you started, and develop an acceptable protocol, or if you think the one you have is acceptable, simply submit it to the JREF.

Changing the subject by introducing pussy does not fare well in predicting a positive future for this thread.

Norm
 
reason1 said:
"and i admit i'm not good comunicator"
i take that back, i was being humble, actually i'm veery goood camunikator !.
Click to expand...

.... and a liar.

I'm not on your ignore list at all.



When are you going to submit your old, useless protocol for the MDC?

How are you progressing with meeting the other requirements (media profile and an academic affidavit)?

Have Google replied yet?

Has Rupert Sheldrake got back to you?

.

Ignore me if you want, but everyone else can see what I write. They might even quote me?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom