Yes, but physical evidence is rarely 100% clear-cut, and so if there is a bias against a particular idea, such as there was against rogue waves, the scientific establishment will not interpret that evidence objectively. Until recently, most oceanographers believed that rogue waves either occurred very rarely or were not even theoretically possible, and so despite the credible eyewitnesses and physical evidence, they continued to interpret accounts of rogue waves as exaggerations supported only by ambiguous physical evidence.
'6th Sense'
- Thread starter N1nja
- Start date
Interesting idea this whole telegraphing thing.
Warning! anecdote
When I studied tae kwo do, telegraphing was a huge issue, there were always people getting told about what, and how they were sending out signals, and apparently I was pretty bad at it. Not to worry though, it's to be expected at the green belt level.
The master once said to me..." I can tell from your body position and the way your looking what you're going to do even before you do"
[/end]
Would it be possible, then, to pick up on those telegraphed signals, no matter how "faint" they are even if you couldn't see your opponent ?
I'm still unconvinced by the video we all watched, and i side the idea that the master had select students that he wanted to pass and gave them a sort of heads up, but is this like some sort of super deluxe method to test the student's ability to read telegraphing ?
Warning! anecdote
When I studied tae kwo do, telegraphing was a huge issue, there were always people getting told about what, and how they were sending out signals, and apparently I was pretty bad at it. Not to worry though, it's to be expected at the green belt level.
The master once said to me..." I can tell from your body position and the way your looking what you're going to do even before you do"
[/end]
Would it be possible, then, to pick up on those telegraphed signals, no matter how "faint" they are even if you couldn't see your opponent ?
I'm still unconvinced by the video we all watched, and i side the idea that the master had select students that he wanted to pass and gave them a sort of heads up, but is this like some sort of super deluxe method to test the student's ability to read telegraphing ?
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
Telegraphing works best when you can see the person, obviously, but it can really work on any possible sense. As someone mentioned upthread, in martial arts like Aikido where they do group attacks, you also learn to listen for people moving up behind you, and the like. At the highest levels, it's really an integration of every little bit of information that is available.
I think it's two fold: Do the students have enough confidence in themselves and the instructor to sit there and risk getting bashed in the head, and do the "selected" students actually have what it takes to pick up the signals the sensei is sending? Because even with telegraphing, if you're not paying attention, you'll still miss it.
You said:
But the actual article says:
Now there is no way I can read that "someone had snuck pieces of explosives on base over a long period of time and put a bomb together in the chow hall" can be read as the same as "a suicide bomber entered the dining facility (DFAC) at an American military installation in Mosul and detonated his explosives".
Now, at best, this shows you were actually there but have an incorrect recollection of events or have described events badly. This in itself would be highly relevant when analysing your other reported stories.
It could also be interpreted by some to not be the same event and you were actually in a different mess hall explosion, but are using that one as an example.
Or that you weren't there at all.
I can answer with assurance that it is possible to read telegraphed attacks from behind. Back in college, there was a rugby player who thought it was funny as hell to tackle me at random times, from behind, without warning. It was funny, you see, because I would be walking with my nose in a book, intently reading. However, thanks to the fact that I can listen as well as read, as well as catch shadows changing and a number of other factors including the movement of the air around me, I was pretty good at sidestepping and/or catching him before he actually got me.
There's a knack to it, but nothing more. But it is an odd knack.
Note: No, he was a friend, it wasn't bullying. He was just a rugby player, with an odd sense of humor. The funny bit was that I could dodge him. If I just went splat, it wouldn't have been funny.
There's a knack to it, but nothing more. But it is an odd knack.
Note: No, he was a friend, it wasn't bullying. He was just a rugby player, with an odd sense of humor. The funny bit was that I could dodge him. If I just went splat, it wouldn't have been funny.
Last edited:
Credible eyewitnesses and physical evidence are not anecdotal evidence.
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
The reason i said what i said was becuase thats what i heard after the event took place... we do not get every single piece of intel and all the details that took place for every single incident. I was stationed in Qatar, while i was in Iraq on a fly away mission, this event occured... I don't actually know ever single detail...if i was stationed there at the time and worked on that installation we would have recieved the necassery intel...
i went back to the flight line and we took of shortly after this incident...
Pardon me for not wanting to sit at the computer and discribe every single detail in full, nor was the exact incident the issue, the issue is what i experianced while i was there.
i went back to the flight line and we took of shortly after this incident...
Pardon me for not wanting to sit at the computer and discribe every single detail in full, nor was the exact incident the issue, the issue is what i experianced while i was there.
Lanzy
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2007
- Messages
- 976
More martial arts WOO.
I am a master in Hapkido, no BS of any kind. Years of hard work and training and I too have seen amazing feats. But, if ANYONE can wear a blindfold and duck out of the way of my striking them with a stick, I'll eat my black belt.
I'm not really trying to offend anyone here, but every mystical crap I hear about falls apart when a talented non-student of the "Master" participates.
and I really doubt Randi would be interested. IMHO
I am a master in Hapkido, no BS of any kind. Years of hard work and training and I too have seen amazing feats. But, if ANYONE can wear a blindfold and duck out of the way of my striking them with a stick, I'll eat my black belt.
I'm not really trying to offend anyone here, but every mystical crap I hear about falls apart when a talented non-student of the "Master" participates.
and I really doubt Randi would be interested. IMHO
Was that post in answer to mine?
Because if so, are you really implying that your mystical experience didn't really warrant your fully checking on what actually happened in the mess hall after you left even though it was extremely clearly reported by multiple sources on a site which you actually linked to?
Is that really now what you are claiming?
Because that would make you either a liar or stupid.
Last edited:
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
And while we're at it, as I wrote that last message, I was thinking, "Gee, the cat probably wants in!", and Lo and Behold, just as I hit "post", I heard the cat banging at the door!
Is this evidence that I can sense the intention of my cat to come home, or that I'm paying attention, and realize that 45 minutes out in the cold is just about her limit?
Is this evidence that I can sense the intention of my cat to come home, or that I'm paying attention, and realize that 45 minutes out in the cold is just about her limit?
Two questions, then:
(1) What kind of evidence do you consider credible eyewitnesses and physical evidence to be?
(2) Whatever your answer to (1), why do you suppose the credible eyewitnesses and physical evidence for rogue waves did not convince most oceanographers of the waves' existence?
1.Physical evidence is not anecdotal. Anecdotal is the kind of evidence where someone says : 'I saw a plesiosaur swimming in Loch Ness'.
Credible eyewitnesses are those who give rational, consistent, credible accounts.
Physical evidence is a pile of plesiosaur poo.
2. I thought oceanographers are convinced of the waves' existence. Am I wrong?
jimtron
Illuminator
Anecodtal evidence: lots of people believe that they have observed advanced martial artists using mystical powers to sense certain things, like an approaching opponent, without using their natural senses. Obviously this kind of evidence isn't good enough.
Much better evidence: test this ability properly, ie, have martial artists with the "6th sense" telepath to each other without being able to see natural cues (visual, aural, etc).
Rodney: many, many people have anecdotal evidence that all kinds of stuff like this works, but why is it that when tested, these abilities always seem to fail? For example dowsing. There is lots of anecdotal evidence that dowsing works. But in simple tests, such as finding water in covered cups with dowsing rods, dowsing never works.
Much better evidence: test this ability properly, ie, have martial artists with the "6th sense" telepath to each other without being able to see natural cues (visual, aural, etc).
Rodney: many, many people have anecdotal evidence that all kinds of stuff like this works, but why is it that when tested, these abilities always seem to fail? For example dowsing. There is lots of anecdotal evidence that dowsing works. But in simple tests, such as finding water in covered cups with dowsing rods, dowsing never works.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
There is actually a purpose to that sword-twirling stuff, but it's not in a fight. I do it regularly to increase the strength and flexibility of my wrists.
Anyway. As has been explained many times, n!nja, there are rational explanations for the dodging-the-sword trick. Sure, it seems supernatural, but really what is happening is that you are training your senses to the point where you can detect sounds, air currents and so forth that are actually below the threshold of consciousness. As others have said several times, you're noticing the shifting of the tatami, the sound of the sensei's clothes, the movement of the air. You may not even be aware that you are sensing them, but that's what's happening.
I would be willing to try to "fool" this sense. I would stand behind you with my sword raised, ready for a strike. You would put on a steel helmet, becaise I'd be hitting you quite hard with a blunt steel sword, and sit directly under my sword with your eyes closed. I would wait motionless for a random length of time before striking. I think that you wouldn't notice the attack, because prior to me actually striking you I make no movement, I do not shift my weight, I do not move my sword out of its position. I would simply strike you in one single sudden move. So long as I am able to remain motionless before the moment of striking, you would have no clues to pick up on to warn you of. It would be as much a test of my ability to remain motionless in an attacking posture as it would of your ability to detect my movement.
Unfortunately I probably live 10,000 miles away from you, so we're unlikely to be able to actually perform this test.
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
But physical evidence frequently accompanies anecdotes, as it did in the case of rogue waves. Most oceanographers were not convinced by the physical evidence of rogue waves because they thought it was consistent with alternative explanations.
They are convinced now because of measurements taken by laser-equipped oil platforms, but the first such measurement did not occur until 1995.
paximperium
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 10,696
Anecdotes starts a question. "I saw a UFO"
Evidence actually gives you an answer. "Radar information and etc. identifies the as a blimp/alien spacecraft etc.."
Anecdotes by itself is useless.
Yes. Evidence answered the question.
Why should they believe anecdotes until evidence was forthcoming?
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
I'm pretty sure we've had a thread about rogue waves before. Unless you're planning to hit a ninja with one*, you guys should look that thread up, and go there!
*And if you are planning to do that, I'm behind you all the way!