🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 24, 2:01 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 2/23/2012 6:48 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
> <somebody wrote>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> Dear Fabrizio,
> >>> Please apply your mathematic to the following events. I have a number
> >>> of people who would like an answer other than it being otherworldly.
>
> >>> This event was the result of a first encounter with a psychic.  He was
> >>> lecturing in an upper floor meeting hall 
in and old building in NYC .
> >>> The room was filled with rows of fold up 
chairs 75-100 facing a
> >>> raised platform with a podium. An effeminate 
man in his mid thirties
> >>> dressed impeccable in a suit and tie walked in 
from a side door
> >>> accompanied by an assistant.
>
> >>> When I arrived he was about to commence with a lecture on 
numerology
> >>> and the significance of the number 3.  I  hurried to take my seat
> >>> never saying a word  and listened. After the lecture was finished
> >>> there was a 
short break and you could feel the anticipation in the
> >>> packed house as they 
knew what was to happen next.  During the break
> >>> idle conversations were heard. I listened and did not speak.
>
> >>> When he returned from an adjoining room he walked up to the first row
> >>> and in semi-trance began to tell each person seated, one by one what
> >>> was coming up next in their lives.  This was absolutely meaningless
> >>> to 
me but by the expressions on peoples faces,  intriguing. Row after
> >>> row 
would leave after they got their personal reading with only a
> >>> few 
staying on to watch it all.
>
> >>> When he finally got to me he pointed at me with closed eyes and said,
> >>> I see an older women who is upset with you.  She is upset over your
> >>> work.  You will have  a “to do”,  “words” over your …. Job.  He
> >>> turned 
as if to go on to the next person when something drew him back
> >>> to me. 
Pointing once again to me, he said, and I see this women upset
> >>> over 
another women who is much older than her.  He paused as if he
> >>> was 
seeing something…..She fell and broke her arm. That was it .
>
> >>> Around 10:00 or 11:00 PM.  that same evening the phone rings, it is my
> >>> mother. She goes off on a rant over the fact that I was quitting my
> >>> job. Ira, my boss gave her an ear full saying I was leaving him in a
> >>> lurch and my mother of course sided with him and was reprimanding me
> >>> about my decision to quit.  But that is not what raised the hairs on
> >>> the back of my neck. I was about to end the conversation when my
> >>> mother blurts out… and give your grandmother a call. She slipped on
> >>> the 
ice, and broke her wrist.
>
> >>> How would you account for the accuracy of the psychics cold reading
> >>> mathematically? This in not a trick question but an actual event. I
> >>> must stress that I had not spoken before or during the reading and had
> >>> no prior knowledge of my grandmother’s accident.
>
> >>> Richard Travisano
>
> >> Your absent reply suggests you are of the opinnion it cannot be
> >> calculated mathematically and is "other worldly".
>
> >> Thank you....
> >> RT
>
> And your reply implies what? I don't know.
>
> > Macro Quantum Entanglement is the mechanism for all paranormal,
> > obviously.
>
> > Chaos theory, events diverge.
>
> > Anti-Chaos theory, events converge (symbolically)
>
> > You can't break the laws of physics, but you can break the laws of
> > probability.
>
> And this reply is even worse! What a meaningless jargon word salad! Just
> throw all those bogus terms around and everyone will think how "smart"
> you are. What have you really said? Nothing as far as I can see.
>
> The story above exemplifies the problem of physics facing a topic on the
> "fringe". Difficult subjects are viewed as best studied by ignoring them
> and making fun of them and pretending they don't really exist. There is
> even a journal (The Journal of Irreproducible Results) created
> specifically to make fun of these topics and insure they are not taken
> seriously.
>
> The point as you can see in the story above, has to do with
> reproducibility. Science and physics in particular has taken to
> demanding that all "facts" be reproducible on command. Sure it's great
> that Maxwells equations tested today will be the same as tested tomorrow
> and one can count on similar results each time. But is that all there is
> to life? Hardly.
>
> Perhaps you've seen me here making this point with satire posts with a
> lampooning of Lightening I assert is a hoax because it's not
> reproducible at will. Hence just like psychic phenomena it must be
> simply a hoax and not exist!
>
> Anyone who's seen REAL psychic phenomena in action (like the above
> story) knows that trying to explain the results by chance or probability
> or fraud or other skeptical arguments is simply scientific nonsense.
> Ignorance codified as an argument. The probabilities of results being
> "luck" are astronomically small. Faced with that, most "skeptics" simply
> withdraw into accusations of lies and hoaxes as if a real scientist were
> too dumb to know the difference. And then as icing on the cake there are
> personal attacks on the sanity of the witnesses to insure that nobody
> has the balls to press the issue further.
>
> Obviously all this is the height of anti-science. All of which is made
> all them more interesting by the very fact that while traditional
> establishment "science" works hard to "debunk" such phenomena, the very
> people paying the establishment for their time (government) is also
> spending millions (probably much more) to actually investigate practical
> applications of the phenomena for spying and other purposes. (remote
> viewing) It's obviously all hypocrisy, with politics polluting real
> science.
>
> So what is the answer? Well, I suggest some real scientists with actual
> interests in these phenomena could start by growing a set of balls.


Wow!  An intelligent skeptic!

Try: http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/links.html

Herc