seemingly unexplainable cases of the paranormal

[cj.23]

I would not say it is the best evidence, Colvin himself to my mind has offered better - but it's certainly recent and was very much a key paper in the field --

http://www.poltergeist.org.uk/storage/pdf-files/Unexplained Rapping Sounds.pdf

There ya go, the original paper

cj x

 

[Stray Cat]

I would not say it is the best evidence,

True, you simply presented it as "claimed to be the best evidence"
Nice escape hatch there.

Colvin himself to my mind has offered better

Present that.

- but it's certainly recent and was very much a key paper in the field --

http://www.poltergeist.org.uk/storage/pdf-files/Unexplained Rapping Sounds.pdf

There ya go, the original paper

A "key paper" wow, the world of paranormal investigation is in worse shape than I thought.

Having spent over 10 years investigating and researching crop circles (another field in which people claim there are two distinct types of thing and go to great lengths to show how they know, without being able to show that there is reason to think there are two types of thing in the first place), this is nothing more than circular reasoning.

 

[cj.23]

True, you simply presented it as "claimed to be the best evidence"
Nice escape hatch there.

A "key paper" wow, the world of paranormal investigation is in worse shape than I thought.

Right. SO come on, what is wrong with the paper? Specific critiques of factual and methodological errors please. Feel free to take your time, I'm working this evening and won't be able to respond till after 11pm I expect.

The challenge is open to all.
cj x

 

[Stray Cat]

Right. SO come on, what is wrong with the paper? Specific critiques of factual and methodological errors please. Feel free to take your time, I'm working this evening and won't be able to respond till after 11pm I expect.

The challenge is open to all.
cj x

The first sentence:
"The wave characteristics of unexplained rapping sounds have been studied and compared with similar sounding raps produced using normal tapping methods. Differences in low frequency wave properties between the two classes of raps have been noted."

It is assumed from the start that there are two 'classes' of rapping; known and unknown and that these are from a different cause (with the unknown rapping heavily hinted at a paranormal source).
The tests are then developed to show differences in these assumed two 'classes' of rapping.

How does this support a paranormal conclusion?
How does this support anything other than, some sounds are different from some others?

Follow 24 pages of nonsense based upon this faulty premise.

Exactly the same as these tests which were the definitive proof of a difference between man made and unknown origin crop circles.

 

[cj.23]

Read the paper. The unknown sources were recorded in ten poltergeist cases, and are of ostensible poltergeist raps. Exactly the kind of physical evidence you have been demanding. They have different acoustic qualities to control waveforms... so come on specific criticisms please...

cj x

 

[GeeMack]

Right. SO come on, what is wrong with the paper? Specific critiques of factual and methodological errors please. Feel free to take your time, I'm working this evening and won't be able to respond till after 11pm I expect.

The challenge is open to all.

Barely 200 words into the paper we find this...

In a small minority of cases a rapping intelligence has been capable of communicating via a code and answer simple questions put to it by those present. Probably the most well-known case of this type is that of the Fox sisters, dating from 1848.​

The sentence starts by considering "a small minority of cases", and references one of the most well known and widely exposed frauds of the 19th century. The paper calls their attempted deception "a rapping intelligence [...] capable of communicating."

Really cj.23, you have utterly and completely failed here. You should be embarrassed to foist this sort of fraudulent material on the good skeptics here at the JREF forums. Take it to the ghost believers' forums where gullibility reigns and willful ignorance and critical thinking are considered assets. You've been busted.

 

[Resume]

Read the paper. The unknown sources were recorded in ten poltergeist cases, and are of ostensible poltergeist raps. Exactly the kind of physical evidence you have been demanding. They have different acoustic qualities to control waveforms... so come on specific criticisms please...

cj x

Ostensibly, they could also be a wave form emanating from Russell's Orbiting Teapot.

 

[Stray Cat]

Read the paper.

I am reading it between uncontrollable burst of laughter at the stupidity I'm seeing.

The unknown sources were recorded in ten poltergeist cases, and are of ostensible poltergeist raps. Exactly the kind of physical evidence you have been demanding.

Wow really?
You think that claims of poltergeist rapping are evidence for poltergeists rapping?

I can't find the bit where the researchers ruled out the infinite number of mundane possibilities for the noises apart from the one they used to compare the acoustic differences. You're not telling me they assumed their conclusion surely?

They have different acoustic qualities to control waveforms... so come on specific criticisms please...

Latest news, different sounds from different sources have different acoustic properties... that would explain why some things sound different from some other things. Sadly, it doesn't explain anything beyond that.

 

[cj.23]

Barely 200 words into the paper we find this...

In a small minority of cases a rapping intelligence has been capable of communicating via a code and answer simple questions put to it by those present. Probably the most well-known case of this type is that of the Fox sisters, dating from 1848.​

The sentence starts by considering "a small minority of cases", and references one of the most well known and widely exposed frauds of the 19th century. The paper calls their attempted deception "a rapping intelligence [...] capable of communicating."

Really cj.23, you have utterly and completely failed here. You should be embarrassed to foist this sort of fraudulent material on the good skeptics here at the JREF forums. Take it to the ghost believers' forums where gullibility reigns and willful ignorance and critical thinking are considered assets. You've been busted.

'Fraid not. Firstly, the Fox Sisters "confessions" as I'm sure you know were highly problematic (though I dod think probably true, but who knows". Secondly, a questionable reference in the opening guff on a paper hardly qualified as being a problem with the sceine that follows. Look GeeMack, just put up the facts hey? Proper sensible critiques. It's not asking much is it? You have been calling me a woo for pages, now show some critical thinking hey?

cj x

 

[Resume]

'Fraid not. Firstly, the Fox Sisters "confessions" as I'm sure you know were highly problematic (though I dod think probably true, but who knows".
cj x

Actually, Margaret confessed, then retracted. This is surprising?

I believe old man Lutz did the same thing in the Amityville hoax.

Still, keeps you talking about it it, don't it?

 

[GeeMack]

'Fraid not. Firstly, the Fox Sisters "confessions" as I'm sure you know were highly problematic (though I dod think probably true, but who knows". Secondly, a questionable reference in the opening guff on a paper hardly qualified as being a problem with the sceine that follows. Look GeeMack, just put up the facts hey? Proper sensible critiques. It's not asking much is it? You have been calling me a woo for pages, now show some critical thinking hey?

I have, although it is not my responsibility to support or debunk your belief. It is the epitome of dishonesty for you to be asking other people to do that. You linked the paper. You do the assessment. You point out how it does support your belief. It is your burden of proof.

 

[cj.23]

I have, although it is not my responsibility to support or debunk your belief. It is the epitome of dishonesty for you to be asking other people to do that. You linked the paper. You do the assessment. You point out how it does support your belief. It is your burden of proof.

I already have. If you had expended the effort in googling you would have found it - my critique, the only one to date as far as i am aware.

http://polterwotsit.wordpress.com/2...vidence-a-follow-up-on-dr-colvins-jspr-paper/

Have a pleasant evening

cj x

 

[Stray Cat]

'Fraid not. Firstly, the Fox Sisters "confessions" as I'm sure you know were highly problematic (though I dod think probably true, but who knows".

Yeah who knows... let's hand wave that one away.

Secondly, a questionable reference in the opening guff on a paper hardly qualified as being a problem with the sceine that follows.

Again this is a major fail.
The authors of this paper are using these questionable references to justify doing their 'science'.
The science may be 100% correct... in fact I can confirm that different noises from different sources contain different acoustic properties... nothing wrong with the science there.
But the significance which they are attaching to their science (based upon the questionable references), is simply unjustified.

 

[GeeMack]

I already have. If you had expended the effort in googling you would have found it - my critique, the only one to date as far as i am aware.

Then you haven't been paying attention, because Stray Cat and I have both evaluated the paper. To claim yours is the only critique would be a demonstration of gross willful ignorance, or possibly an intentionally false statement.

 

[cj.23]

Then you haven't been paying attention, because Stray Cat and I have both evaluated the paper. To claim yours is the only critique would be a demonstration of gross willful ignorance, or possibly an intentionally false statement.

Fair enough GeeMack, no hard feelings. You called em rather a lot of interesting names, and suggested I was incapable of critical thought. I merely intended to make my point rather strongly that I felt that was unfair. YOu did indeed critique the paper, albeit not on the same grounds I did. So long as you are not engaging in the circular reasoning that poltergist evidence is inadmissable as evidence because it concerns poltergeists, I see no reason to not put this all behind us and move on.

I don't bear grudges, not am I bothered by being told I'm stupid.
cj x