Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
JimOberg

More Ravings from Clark McClelland

86 posts in this topic

Meanwhile, in light of the new reconstruction of events, it's clear that the impossibility of McClelland seeing the SAME event as the Japanese astronomer doesn't reflect badly on his credibility if he didn't claim to have seen the same event. But a different event at a different date.

I suppose it depends how long the 'event' lasted....and if it could be considered the 'same event'....

ie. same thing happening in the same place...

I only heard about it in the last couple of days....so I don't know at the moment.

It will probably come down to semantics in the end...

I don't have the time right now to go and find out exactly what McClelland said about it...but I might do over the weekend.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I applaud you for admitting the mistake Jim, but with this in mind, does this mean that we now have a reasonable appreciation of how you interpret events/evidence and therefore fall inline with Mitchells 'misinterpreting' the ESP conclusion?

All interpretations are subject to reappraisal with new evidence. regarding Mitchell's experiment, there is no new evidence in forty years -- just the original data sheets.

...and from that raw data, in my assessment, I see Mitchell altering the criteria for 'hits' several times until he finds an arbitrary scheme that produces statistical significance. And in my view, from classic science training, that's not good science.

By all means, try it yourself.

First thing you notice -- the paper is not online, anywhere on the Internet, and Mitchell refuses permission to post it on line. Only HIS summaries of HIS assessment of his own experiment are allowed to be released. If you try hard you can find a few reviews by other ESP researchers, and they are not kind.

You can confirm that.

Then you can draw conclusions from that behavior.

Then you can generalize that behavior, tentatively.

Try it yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have the time right now to go and find out exactly what McClelland said about it...but I might do over the weekend.

I have the same problem.

...but thanks for making an issue of it and getting the hitherto unknown-to-me detailed email exchanges posted. Better to be embarrassed among friends than to make an incomplete and misleading allegation on a widely-accessed news website.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All interpretations are subject to reappraisal with new evidence. regarding Mitchell's experiment, there is no new evidence in forty years -- just the original data sheets.

...and from that raw data, in my assessment, I see Mitchell altering the criteria for 'hits' several times until he finds an arbitrary scheme that produces statistical significance. And in my view, from classic science training, that's not good science.

By all means, try it yourself.

First thing you notice -- the paper is not online, anywhere on the Internet, and Mitchell refuses permission to post it on line. Only HIS summaries of HIS assessment of his own experiment are allowed to be released. If you try hard you can find a few reviews by other ESP researchers, and they are not kind.

You can confirm that.

Then you can draw conclusions from that behavior.

Then you can generalize that behavior, tentatively.

Try it yourself.

ok noted on top half of post.

As for the paper, what data specifically?....if you can point to specific faults I should be able to find some 'extracts' from the paper that relate directly to said fault.

may I ask you how and when did you read the paper? is there anywhere that confirms his reluctance to post it online? and if so why? rather than jumping to conclusions as to why do we know anything factually speaking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok noted on top half of post.

As for the paper, what data specifically?....if you can point to specific faults I should be able to find some 'extracts' from the paper that relate directly to said fault.

may I ask you how and when did you read the paper? is there anywhere that confirms his reluctance to post it online? and if so why? rather than jumping to conclusions as to why do we know anything factually speaking?

Let's discuss the mitchell stuff on the mitchell thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

how sad...never mind...he will notice you now after your previous post about the Mars sighting..of what-ever-it was.... :w00t:

Yeah right Bee, your getting the credit for the email exchanges! I am invisible :cry: It's unrequited I tells ya!

Glad you liked the link! :D I like to help out when I can, for everyone.

zat is, again...very sweet of you...... :P

I'm just that kind of guy, in fact I am a little hurt that it took you so long to notice.

But only when he is strapped to the wall with a black belt thingy......like in your pic..... :innocent:

.

You would think so wouldn't you! Seems like there must be a trick some place, but have a look at this clip, no black belt thingy! @ about 13:40

*snip*

Edited by Saru
Youtube video removed due to copyright

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Cheers for that Psyche......so the Saheki and McClelland sightings of the what-ever on Mars... took place on different dates......mmmmmmmm

Did you realise that Jim?

And does this make that particular accusation that you have levelled at McClelland nul and void...?

Perhaps you should withdraw it...or people might think you are just trying to cast aspersions on McClelland because he is

spilling the beans.....the secret beans..... :)

.

You are welcome Bee, but I do not hink there is anything Jim could possibly say to make MClelland look worse than he already does.

Giant entities! Great Shatner's Ghost!

Edited by psyche101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah right Bee, your getting the credit for the email exchanges! I am invisible :cry: It's unrequited I tells ya!

haha...yes I did get the credit :lol:

I watched the Penn and Teller vid before it was removed....it was funny.... :tu:

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the same problem.

...but thanks for making an issue of it and getting the hitherto unknown-to-me detailed email exchanges posted. Better to be embarrassed among friends than to make an incomplete and misleading allegation on a widely-accessed news website.

I did a search for McClelland explosion on mars and in this short video he says....(in the first couple of minutes)

"I observed there on Mars in 1954 (I believe it was now, not 1952 like I said earlier)...an explosion on Mars.

I had 58 seconds of that explosion. There was one other people on earth that observed the explosion with me.

He was a Japanese astronomer. We both observed it in the same area."

So....as I predicted it comes down to semantics....

When McClelland says 'with me'....he must have meant.....'as well as me'...

Lets be fair here...he is not expressing himself very well...like saying 'people' when it should have been 'person'.

As you have already seen the vid and commented on it 2 months ago saying....

JamesOberg 2 months ago

Kathleen, you forgot to check on the visibility of Mars during that explosion, as seen from Pennsylvania. Unless the Earth is flat, it was physically impossible for anyone in the US to have seen the explosion that was visible to the astronomer in Japan. What am I overlooking?

I would say that you are overlooking that the sightings, of what-ever..... happened on two different dates....but you have jumped

on McClelland saying 'with me'......when this was just a poorly expressed statement.

Jeeez Jim.....hasn't the poor guy suffered enough? Are you trying to put people off spending a few dollars on his chapters...?

If everything he says is so wrong...why are you taking it so seriously?

:huh:

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a search for McClelland explosion on mars and in this short video he says....(in the first couple of minutes)

"I observed there on Mars in 1954 (I believe it was now, not 1952 like I said earlier)...an explosion on Mars.

I had 58 seconds of that explosion. There was one other people on earth that observed the explosion with me.

He was a Japanese astronomer. We both observed it in the same area."

[media=]

[/media]

So....as I predicted it comes down to semantics....

When McClelland says 'with me'....he must have meant.....'as well as me'...

Lets be fair here...he is not expressing himself very well...like saying 'people' when it should have been 'person'.

As you have already seen the vid and commented on it 2 months ago saying....

I would say that you are overlooking that the sightings, of what-ever..... happened on two different dates....but you have jumped

on McClelland saying 'with me'......when this was just a poorly expressed statement.

Jeeez Jim.....hasn't the poor guy suffered enough? Are you trying to put people off spending a few dollars on his chapters...?

If everything he says is so wrong...why are you taking it so seriously?

:huh:

.

That''s a bit rough Bee, you said yourself McClelland represented himself badly, no wonder this is some confusion. He should not talk with his fingers in his mouth.

McClelland suffered?

Anyone who spends money on that nonsense has too much money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THeres only so much the Human mind can take before it Explodes I see alot of Grey matter splattered on the electrons in here ! :sk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.