> "Any issues you have, is from your
> own insecurity. If you have an ability, an IIG test will prove it. If you
> don't have an ability, you would fail a paranormal test. It's really quite
> that simple."
>
> So you admit you don't have an ability then? That's fine. IIG is saying
> the same thing about you. It also explains why you couldn't do what you
> claimed.
Well, I have my excuses. There was a heavy-set man that took a lot of my
time to perceive the kidneys. And by the third trial, I was exhausted and
feeling fatigue, headache and nausea, and very nearly raised my hand to
cancel that trial. I don't mind failing a test, in fact I have never
intended to be a psychic. I am investigating an experience, and I am only
interested in what ever that experience is, inaccuracies, accuracies, and
all.
> And just because you have some people who were volunteers in the test who
> wanted you to succeed does not mean that the people who run the
> organization aren't making money or have a complete different agenda. The
> volunteers aren't getting PAID after all. And they aren't highly credible
> if they aren't willing to have their data subjected to outside review and
> the whole process monitored by a disinterested third party. Scientific
> review is how TRUE research organizations refer to this process.
I trust the IIG. You are right that there could have been a third party
involved, but in this case I don't think it would have been necessary. I
failed by my own means, by choosing the wrong person in trial 1, and by
choosing the wrong kidney in trial 3.
> And the director told me the same thing when I spoke to him about him
> making more money if he proved psychic phenomenon...blah blah blah. No he
> wouldn't and he knows it. Because they would be preaching to the crowd of
> New Age spiritualists who already KNOW its real and turning their back on
> people who don't and will never believe. In 2000 years of recorded history
> no one has come close to proving God's existence. This is akin to that.
> They know for a fact that even if they "proved" psychic phenomenon it
> wouldn't change very many people's opinions. The skeptical base in their
> organization would just think they sold out and the money dry up.
I disagree, still. I think that if the IIG were to discover one person who
has an extrasensory ability, the IIG would make a lot of money on that.
And it would not ruin skepticism, since skepticism is based on science,
and science is based on allowing new discoveries. There is no conspiracy.
> You keep equating these people to scientists. Scientists aren't offering
> million dollar contests or 50k for a session. They work in universities
> with people who volunteer their time. These money offer methods are pure
> hucksterism. Carny folk tactics. TRUE skepicism is a science. Basically it
> says..."show me!"...as one of its main tenants. I've no problem with that.
> But what these guys have isn't a skeptical scientific organization like a
> college doing research on moving objects with your mind...these are people
> out to sell books and keep donations coming in. As Al Gore said...if your
> JOB depends on you not seeing something like climate change, then it's
> pretty unlikely you'll ever see it. This is the same situation. They will
> never truly examine an issue with an unbiased eye.
It is true that scientists don't offer such a money prize, but I think the
prize is just there to lure in the greedy part of psychic claimants out
there. You know, those who make stuff up, just to charge $1,700 for a
reading? Besides, the money prize is not an issue, the IIG is capable of
setting up a proper test anyway. Paranormal claims can be tested elsewhere
also, but the IIG is a good choice I think.
If you take a look at the IIG website at some of the work that the IIG do,
you will see that they are entitled to donations to keep their work going.
The IIG saw the data that I produced, and their interpretation of the data
was not biased by their position as skeptics. They were capable of being
fully objective in their acknowledgement of the data.
> You say no cheating was possible because an ultra sound was used. Was
> there a monitor there? How do you know the image you saw on the screen
> wasn't video taped beforehand from a different patient and then loaded
> onto the screen? If you say, "yes, kidney" then they press the VCR and
> load the "no kidney" image or vice versa? Did you put your hand under the
> patient to make sure your hand appeared on the ultrasound? Or at least
> somewhere in the picture?
I did ask the ultrasound technician this question. Well, don't forget that
I also knew that trials 1 and 3 were wrong when I prepared the answer
sheets. If the ultrasound machine would have indicated that my choice in
trial 2 would have had both kidneys, then I would have had suspicions. The
ultrasound was accurate. I know, because I was there. I accept that trials
1 and 3 were incorrect based on my choices of subjects and kidneys.
> You say to me not to blame IIG for the testing. I'm sorry, but I won't do
> that because I do blame them for engaging in questionable testing
> practices and using "come along" tactics that look more like a department
> store advertising a ridiculously low priced item that they know they will
> never provide just so they can suck some people into the store. It's a con
> job. Which is ironic considering the accusations they throw out the same
> accusation about psychics and spiritualists.
Look, I had every opportunity to win the challenge if I would have chosen
the right person and the right kidney in all three trials, and I failed
entirely on my own. Did you ever think that the reason psychic claimants
fail scientific tests, is because they can't do it?
> If you can't admit you got fooled and used by an organization with an
> agenda then that's your problem..not mine. It ain't like I didn't try to
> warn you. But you did get used. If you're a fraud like you say, then I
> don't care anymore. Waste your time with them if you want.
I was not fooled. I failed fair and square. The only problem is that you
do not realize, that if a paranormal claim were true, it would be very
easy to pass a paranormal challenge with that claim. I failed because I
chose the wrong person in trial 1, and chose the wrong kidney in trial 3.
Warn me of what? Warn me of having a reliable and well-carried out test
with a credible organization? I was not used, other than to perhaps set a
valuable example of falsified woo, and that was sort of my agenda all
along. I support truth, skepticism, and science. Even though I have an
unusual experience. But I am not a fraud. The IIG test was not a waste of
my time, I learned plenty more valuable information about my claim in my
investigation.
> And I have no problem with James Randi's investigations into psychics who
> are true frauds and with being a skeptic...or with writing books. But this
> Million Dollar Challenge is BS to me. And will continue to be BS until
> they make their million dollar bet and let someone else hold the money and
> determine if criteria have been met. Same for IIG. You can say it's "woo
> talk"...cigarettes causing cancer was "woo talk" for a number of years.
> Every scientific study from the cigarette industry proved it was "woo
> talk"!
I have faith in that if someone had a true paranormal ability, they would
win the million dollars. Although Randi says he is not a trained
scientist, I do know that he appreciates science, and if there were a true
paranormal discovery to be made, he would surely consider it science and
would allow it to be discovered. And he would be proud to discover it.
Of course woo should be researched and investigated, that is what I am
doing. Just that if the woo isn't good enough to produce accurate
observations or phenomena that are based in our mutually experienced real
world, the woo is more likely to be a personal experience of a person
rather than something to be considered as extending into the reality that
we can all share.
> I apologize if I gave offense by not recognizing you were not working in
> the psychic field. It's true I'd never heard of you before so I believe
> you when you say you aren't "in the field". Maybe you work for IIG, come
> to that. Pretend to take a test and pretend to be in the psychic field in
> order to make IIG look like they are doing real work. Now THERE is some
> "woo talk" for ya!
I do not work for the IIG, but I do consider myself working "for"
skepticism as a whole. The claim was genuine, however, and I will continue
to investigate it. I happen to be a combination of skeptic and woo, so
that is why there is a lot of confusion among woos and skeptics alike.
> Again, I meant nothing offensive by suggesting you were doing work in the
> psychic industry. I will still, however, encourage people who feel they
> are psychics to donate their time to UNIVERSITY research and not with
> ENTERTAINERS so called "Research". I won't apologize for that. I intend to
> continue trying to educate people who ARE in the psychic field to reject
> these groups and their tactics.
I accept that. Universities are also credible to conduct paranormal tests.
But the IIG is also a wonderful resource for tests, I think. My test was
set up and conducted perfectly.
> Oh, I feel exactly the same way about skeptical inquiry. I've just had so
> many personal experiences in the past that I no longer question the
> existence of "Another Realm". And typically, the most skeptical people I
> meet regarding psychic phenomenon are usually other psychics. Unless
> something comes thru THEM then they tend to not believe the claims of
> another person until it is shown in real life...or given the stamp of
> approval by appearing on Oprah or some other show.
I agree that a lot of the things that are within pseudoscience, or woo,
are things that are personal experiences to a person, such as personal
impressions, emotions, feelings, thoughts, religion, or ideas, and we are
all entitled to having these. Some Skeptics try to live totally void of
anything subjective, and they are certaintly entitled to that also. The
problem comes, when a person tries to take their personal and subjective
experiences, and extend those into the lives of others. It then robs
others of their own chances of objective truth. That is the real danger,
that I think Skeptics are trying to fight.
Some woos take what are their own, compelling personal experiences, and
try to convince others, and that takes away some of the most precious
things that we all have as humans, that is our sense of reality, our own
personal experience of ourselves and the world. Not to mention that many
woos charge people a lot of money with their practice, and even put others
into danger and real harm.
> Been good talking with ya. I'll not trouble you again.
No trouble. Just that I am a Skeptic. And, like I said, you know how we are.
