Are you trying to learn Telekenisis?

[Mattshark]

What mattsharks link led to...

http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/PEARCritique.htmhttp://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/PEARCritique.htm

It seems your results are meaningless or perhaps you should contact the owner of this web site to inform them of this situation.

So far I see only one joke Mattshark and it is related to conservative science

I fail to see the relevance of your commentary if it was junk then this would not be true "Quite a few expert panels examined PEAR’s methods, looking for irregularities, but did not find a single reason to interrupt the work.

The funny is on conservative science Mattshark I have already proven this

Any thoughts?

Maybe if you looked you'd see the link was accidentally posted twice.

Try now

PEAR Critique

Radin's idea of an expert is nothing to do with science.

[Mattshark]

Articles available in the Nature Journal related to the Paranormal...

There are three other pages

Rest of link

In relation to credibility Mattshark what is the point in claiming you have any???

Any thoughts?

Because I understand science, I do not lie about my qualifications, I understand how scientific evidence works, I have not promoted pseudo-science, I have never tried to argue against a paper by using a paper it falsifies (you have) and because I know a lot more about science than you

[Virtual Particle]

Because I understand science, I do not lie about my qualifications, I understand how scientific evidence works, I have not promoted pseudo-science, I have never tried to argue against a paper by using a paper it falsifies (you have) and because I know a lot more about science than you

Mattshark those articles are in Nature, clearly, something you felt was relevant to evidence...If your looking for evidence subscribe to the Nature Journal and you are therefore provided with all the evidence you need. I have not presented anything with regards to such claims you have provided falsified claims and clearly when in respect to a recent link you offered and today, no response, to the fact that link is obviously false (the word trickster is even included in its adress).

What falsifies you is that you have nothing to offer in relation to anything and to be honest the naive behavior (on your part) in general suggest that in fact you are completely unqualified to discuss any of this.

Telekinesis is real, the laws of physics will need to be changed to accommodate that factor and you have done wonders to make that choice clear.

Thanks again....a subscription to Nature does not cost that much given your profound interest.

Mattshark states in post number 1040 in this thread...

That is not a journal you want to be publishing in if you want to be taken seriously. If they did something spectacular, it would be in Science or Nature. Basically for 28 years, what they have there is nothing. I have friends doing their Ph.D who have a better publication record.

Any thoughts?

Edited September 10, 2009 by Triad

[Mattshark]

Mattshark those articles are in Nature, clearly, something you felt was relevant to evidence...If your looking for evidence subscribe to the Nature Journal and you are therefore provided with all the evidence you need. I have not presented anything with regards to such claims you have provided falsified claims and clearly when in respect to a recent link you offered and today, no response, to the fact that link is obviously false (the word trickster is even included in its adress).

What falsifies you is that you have nothing to offer in relation to anything and to be honest the naive behavior (on your part) in general suggest that in fact you are completely unqualified to discuss any of this.

Telekinesis is real, the laws of physics will need to be changed to accommodate that factor and you have done wonders to make that choice clear.

Thanks again....a subscription to Nature does not cost that much given your profound interest.

Mattshark states in post number 1040 in this thread...

Any thoughts?

Already got access thanks You haven't shown anything though, maybe you should subscribe to see what they actually say because none of them support your ickle fantasies about telekinesis . If you read you'd see book reviews and critiques.

News stories like : Time is running out for paranormal prize

Articles by every "psi" fans favourite, James Randi

But it needn't involve anything paranormal.

From:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7134/full/446357a.html

Maybe you shouldn't be so dishonest with someone who does have journal access

[Virtual Particle]

Already got access thanks You haven't shown anything though, maybe you should subscribe to see what they actually say because none of them support your ickle fantasies about telekinesis . If you read you'd see book reviews and critiques.

News stories like : Time is running out for paranormal prize

Articles by every "psi" fans favourite, James Randi

From:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7134/full/446357a.html

Maybe you shouldn't be so dishonest with someone who does have journal access

Ohhh you should see the Science journal, it has seven pages related to the paranormal, I did that already Mattshark used my credit card and everything to access a page in Nature back when I started in this forum. Time is running out for your point Mattshark there are 117 articles in Nature regarding the matter of the Paranormal and much more in Science. I am not being dishonest with you Mattshark I spent my whole life helping people who do not have Journal access

I am upping the amount from $1000 to ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000) for proof that Randi's psychic challenge is a valid offer. Since my challenge was made July 17th, 2007, NO ONE has succe

You claim access why not present your point in this forum.

Any thoughts?

PS: I am not the one being dishonest

[Mattshark]

Ohhh you should see the Science journal, it has seven pages related to the paranormal, I did that already Mattshark used my credit card and everything to access a page in Nature back when I started in this forum. Time is running out for your point Mattshark there are 117 articles in Nature regarding the matter of the Paranormal and much more in Science. I am not being dishonest with you Mattshark I spent my whole life helping people who do not have Journal access

You claim access why not present your point in this forum.

Any thoughts?

PS: I am not the one being dishonest

I just address your science thread and your are being dishonest on both lad, neither journal backs your claims, as I said you should maybe read them before making a fool out of yourself.

Do you really think book reviews on why the paranormal is junk is supporting science seriously Triad, you are too funny :

Edited September 10, 2009 by Mattshark

[Virtual Particle]

I just address your science thread and your are being dishonest on both lad, neither journal backs your claims, as I said you should maybe read them before making a fool out of yourself.

Do you really think book reviews on why the paranormal is junk is supporting science seriously Triad, you are too funny :

Not as funny as when you suggested there were no slaves in UK Mattshark that was about as funny as it gets, when it comes to taking someone seriously who states something like that

Son get over yourself and take the trouble to actually have access to Nature and Science.

Seriouly I still get a chuckle from that from time to time (like now).

And you know what if you can prove Randi's challenge is legit you can get 100,000.00 dollars.

Wow Mattshark sounds like you should go for that??? Feel free to contact us when you have won the money.

I am certain that the University you claim to have recieved a BS from (as you claim to be working on your masters) would be able to help you formulate this proof which could result in you getting $100,000.00.

All you have to do is prove Randi's operation is legit.

Any thoughts?

Edited September 10, 2009 by Triad

[Mattshark]

Not as funny as when you suggested there were no slaves in UK Mattshark that was about as funny as it gets, when it comes to taking someone seriously who states something like that

Son get over yourself and take the trouble to actually have access to Nature and Science.

Seriouly I still get a chuckle from that from time to time (like now).

And you know what if you can prove Randi's challenge is legit you can get 100,000.00 dollars.

Wow Mattshark sounds like you should go for that??? Feel free to contact us when you have won the money.

I am certain that the University you claim to have recieved a BS from (as you claim to be working on your masters) would be able to help you formulate this proof which could result in you getting $100,000.00.

All you have to do is prove Randi's operation is legit.

Any thoughts?

Oh deliberate dishonesty tactics Triad, very commendable of you. Oh and further dishonesty about Nature and Science. Oh Triad. Not telling the truth is very bad you know .

How would any university be able to made up powers exactly?

Triad you have no argument so you resort to dishonesty. I will ask you kindly not to deliberately misquote me, that is cheap. I would also advise you to examine the search you did in Nature and Science and show me exactly where it supports your claims.

I'll be waiting.

(Oh and it is BSc, not a BS that I have).

[mcrom901]

Why do you feel sad? Because no one can back up any claims of telekinesis?

Radin is wrong, it is not a taboo, it is just falsified, but him and the junk at the Noetic institute simply won't let go.

same old pingpong..... well, what do you want me to say.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Tj5M9sxZqM

[Mattshark]

same old pingpong..... well, what do you want me to say.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Tj5M9sxZqM

You realise that youtube is not evidence don't you. Videos are not controlled and easy to manipulate.

[mcrom901]

You realise that youtube is not evidence don't you. Videos are not controlled and easy to manipulate.

that was quick........

com'on check those videos.....

Edited September 10, 2009 by mcrom901

[Mattshark]

that was quick........

com'on check those videos.....

I scanned the first one nothing there is shocking or difficult to do and saw the start of the second. Videos are not evidence mcrom though, how do you counter any cheating on a video? CONTROLLED CONDITIONS. Extremely important if you want to make an argument.

[sinewave]

In all the years I have been aware of PK theories no one has ever produced anything resembling scientific proof of the phenomena. Since the 70's we have seen government funded PK research projects and university parapsychology departments dismantled because they have failed to produce verifiable results. If PK is real, why the exodus?

[mcrom901]

well...

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_11_1_pratt.pdf

http://people.uncw.edu/puente/sperry/sperrypapers/80s-90s/282-1994.pdf

http://m0134.fmg.uva.nl/research/PSI%20research/papers/39.pdf

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=JyfbUvuJbbYC

http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/content/citation/244/1/R3

jse_01_2_schmidt.pdf

[Mattshark]

well...

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_11_1_pratt.pdf: Junk - JSE will publish any rubbish and there is no science linking consciousness to quantum, that is new age nonsense

http://people.uncw.edu/puente/sperry/sperrypapers/80s-90s/282-1994.pdf - Noetic Science is not science.

http://m0134.fmg.uva.nl/research/PSI%20research/papers/39.pdf - A weak argument for the lack of evidence

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=JyfbUvuJbbYC - It is a book called psi wars. How seriously do you want me to take it0

http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/content/citation/244/1/R3 - Contribution of statistics to ethics of science - Nice relevance there

Edited September 10, 2009 by Mattshark

[mcrom901]

well..... your comments are irrelevant.....

http://consc.net/papers/nature.pdf

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/feb/13-is-quantum-mechanics-controlling-your-thoughts/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g115139168855415/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

http://www.bath.ac.uk/carpp/publications/doc_theses_links/d_skrbina.html

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/

Edited September 11, 2009 by mcrom901

[Mattshark]

well..... your comments are irrelevant.....

http://consc.net/papers/nature.pdf

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/feb/13-is-quantum-mechanics-controlling-your-thoughts/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g115139168855415/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

http://www.bath.ac.uk/carpp/publications/doc_theses_links/d_skrbina.html

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/

Are you just posting random articles with out even considering what is in them, that is not making a case. That is just posting random articles with out addressing what is in them, and none of what poor little mcrom posted supports his claims.

And quite frankly quantum mind is bs imo, beyond flawed and mathematically unsupported. Either way though Mcrom it gives no support to TK at all. Maybe you should read things instead of just posting them.

Edited September 11, 2009 by Mattshark

[sinewave]

Teams were assembled. Money was spent. No evidence was found. Reputations were tarnished. Everyone went home. Claims of PK are either overstated or fabrications.

[mcrom901]

Are you just posting random articles with out even considering what is in them, that is not making a case. That is just posting random articles with out addressing what is in them, and none of what poor little mcrom posted supports his claims.

And quite frankly quantum mind is bs imo, beyond flawed and mathematically unsupported. Either way though Mcrom it gives no support to TK at all. Maybe you should read things instead of just posting them.

[Mattshark]

Yes mcrom, that is about the level of the case you put forward. You don't know what you are trying to even debate.

[mcrom901]

Yes mcrom, that is about the level of the case you put forward. You don't know what you are trying to even debate.

cherio..... i'm not in the mood today.....

anyways.... i've heard enough of your ignorance...

ciao

[Mattshark]

cherio..... i'm not in the mood today.....

anyways.... i've heard enough of your ignorance...

ciao

Oh the irony

[The One Who Is]

[Virtual Particle]

Oh deliberate dishonesty tactics Triad, very commendable of you. Oh and further dishonesty about Nature and Science. Oh Triad. Not telling the truth is very bad you know .

How would any university be able to made up powers exactly?

Triad you have no argument so you resort to dishonesty. I will ask you kindly not to deliberately misquote me, that is cheap. I would also advise you to examine the search you did in Nature and Science and show me exactly where it supports your claims.

I'll be waiting.

(Oh and it is BSc, not a BS that I have).

The $100,000 is not a joke Mattshark prove that Randi is correct and what based upon your responss is hard about that???

If everything about the paranormal is incorrect you should be able to get that money real quick...As far as dishonesty Mattshark you take the cake as you have no prepared responses to what has been offered.

Again in relation to your first argument and in relation to Randi.. $100,000.00 is offered, if you can prove your point...gee cannot prove your point??? It must have something to do with the fact, your point is mute and has been for a while now.

Any thoughts?

PS: As far as you BSc it sounds like you only have a BS to date.

Any thoughts?

[Mattshark]

The $100,000 is not a joke Mattshark prove that Randi is correct and what based upon your responss is hard about that???

If everything about the paranormal is incorrect you should be able to get that money real quick...As far as dishonesty Mattshark you take the cake as you have no prepared responses to what has been offered.

Again in relation to your first argument and in relation to Randi.. $100,000.00 is offered, if you can prove your point...gee cannot prove your point??? It must have something to do with the fact, your point is mute and has been for a while now.

Any thoughts?

PS: As far as you BSc it sounds like you only have a BS to date.

Any thoughts?

OK then Triad, post me articles from Nature and Science that support your claims, I'm waiting. Prove you are not being dishonest, I did post examples, don't you remember. Maybe you should go and read again.

You are being deliberately dishonest Triad, you can't back your own argument up so as per usual you resort to playground tactics

And maybe you should do 2 other things Triad

1) Learn to tell the difference between 100000 and 1000000

2) Find out what Randi's Challenge is. It is for people who believe they are psychic to prove it.

JREF $1m Challenge

Don't try and mock my qualifications when you can't match them Triad. You have shown no knowledge of scientific method or analysing evidence. You have lied about what is in journals and when you can't make a real argument you try and bully like a child. Grow up Triad. You're in your fifties not five.