Zork

That does not mean that he was not thinking about it. A mere asian american would suffice. Why bother with the "big boys"?

Is there ANY logical explanation why this wasn't done through PM like it should? Why did you bring up obvious online PhD scams then as an example of learning through video then?

You exhibit all the characteristics of a personality cult despite how you are trying to deflect the subject.

At least ilovecoffee was annoying but never rude the way megamind is.

Well in Latveria where i am situated you can only gain PhDs with original research and in the physics department an experiment is implied but hey what do we know? As it seems in the developed countries like the one that most WMP live you can gain PhDs online. this is 100% mopai's fault. This is 100% Jim's fault for sharing mopai instructions with people that he shouldn't have.

It wasn't then? yeah how silly of him to complain about a thread named "To Earl Grey"! Does it sound like an ad hominem? bahhhhhhhh Online PhD? Where can i find these things when i need them! How much do a dozen of them cost online?

And who is to blame then? This is 100% mo pai's fault! It is on Chang who gave the teachings to people that couldn't keep their mouth shut, WMP splinter guys for giving them away for whatever reasons and WMP purists for not posting the correct instructions to prevent the damage due to malpractice. And all these for what? "Keeping the secrets" of a dead end system with limited progress? If only we could force you to practice some other "placebo" qigong and see for yourselves we would, but unfortunately we can't. No conspiracy theories. The plain truth for all to see.

If you say so....

Says who? The one who accused my country of being backwater because it doesn't accept video alone as proof? Video isn't proof get over it. The studies you posted are meta analysis of medical of veterans who were already diagnosed with cancer. There is zero analysis on cofactors so i hate to burst your idiotic bubble but this study doesn't establish causality!

You don't understand statistical analysis. The links do not establish causality at all. One study isn't proof. Repeated studies are an indication.

As proven repeatedly by the sources provided in the past, there is no established link between agent orange and prostate cancer. The links you provided state this clearly.

Don't forget that he inserted the electrode up his anus! Such self sacrifice!

You forgot to mention that the "magus of Java" will replace the Bible everywhere! All hail our saviour John Chang!

They are here to troll and spam. Take a look at a Reddit post. At some point one asks him "I suppose you refer to Mo Pai neigong. There are several users on thedaobums that are senior students or close friends of the late Jim. Good luck on your search." and the poor man responds " I have met a few who but they are unwilling to help." So they aren't here to show people anything because they only want to recruit clueless people and control them through the dissemination of the teachings. Thank god that they only have access to a worthless part of the system. They are worse than vermin!

So is Wakanda. Why did you not pick that? As i said nice knowing you, you won't be missed!

You imply that i live in a third world country which is insulting, you have done so before and i have asked Sean to ban you. I will insist on that. Have a nice day.

How do you know that i have not emailed Kosta in the past? Btw nice knowing ya.

Now GTFO of this thread! Enough of your lies and twisting of truth providing sources that don't claim what you say and don't reinforce your opinion. You have spammed the thread enough already by repeating the same non answers and quoting random sources.

The statement that "all men will get prostate cancer?". Lie no1 The statement that video footage is proof in cases of injury. Lie no2 The statement that video footage is proof in cases of traffic accidents. Lie no3 The statement where you insist that video footage is evidence in general while i told you it is not the case in many countries. Lie no4 The insistence of Magus of Java being what chang said while being the product of two intermediaries and none of you being present and many facts being dismissed by Jim as fiction. Lie no5 You insist that you did not mention mopai when you repeatedly referred to your practice before the ad hominem attack thread on Earl Grey. Lie no6 I can find more i am sure. All i need is keep sifting through the bull crap you have posted during your short attendance here. None of the sources you quoted confirms any of the above. All lies. Video isn't evidence. GSmaster has shown you videos of people performing "miracles" in front of scientists in controlled environments and checked for fraud. You dismiss them but they pass the feeble requirements that you have yourselves put to test the validity of the Chang videos. TL;DR You don't have evidence, change your narrative.

Yes you have lied repeatedly.

No. Sorry to burst your bubble. NO. Period.

How accurate is video analysis? A discussion of the accuracy of video analysis should be prefaced by saying that determining vehicle speed from video analysis is almost never the only method we use. In fact, whether using video analysis or not, we ensure that any full accident reconstruction has supported conclusions that match even when determined several ways. For example, we have compared a speed assessed from video with information about the vehicle’s speed from another source, such as the vehicle’s event data recorder (EDR) or black box. We also check accident reconstruction analyses of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum with video analysis to make sure the speeds match. Having more than one source of information allows us to make conclusions with much higher certainty, which can often help settle matters early or form a strong portion of the expert evidence if matters proceed to court. Validating the accuracy of video analysis is a matter of interest to us. During our Crash Conference, vehicles are heavily instrumented and the crash is covered by numerous video camera views. What better situation could we ask for to conduct a little experiment or two? Warning: things are about to get nerdy! You can always skip to the conclusions, but read on if you want to understand how we tested video analysis accuracy. Which part of the above don't you understand? It is verbatim from a source YOU gave us to prove something that isn't true ie. Video footage as evidence in court.The link is crystal clear in saying about making "conclusions with certainty". If video is objective evidence then why are the experts talking about making conclusions with certainty? Objective means certain and unquestionable. This implies that video isn't conclusive by itself nor objective. I told you already, there is no debate about it. Video cannot be used in court in a huge number of circumstances and it is not acceptable as such in many places among which is the place i live. CHANGE YOUR NARRATIVE!

And how does this prove that there weren't two intermediaries between Chang and Magus of Java?

The source i quoted doesn't mention the above. You are debating out of context. What the source says is that one video footage by itself isn't enough to prove anything in court.