PK abilities - real or imaginary?

[Nungali]

4 minutes ago, Ilovecoffee said:

 

 

 

 

 

This video is much better.  The researchers included: the head of the Mind Science Foundation, a Ph.D. in neuroscience, and a medical doctor. They stripped the subject to his shirt and underwear and used a metal detector to check his body for metal. They received an indoor demo, then went outside for a second demo. They assumed some device on the property was causing the effect, so they took the subject to a random location for a third demo.

 

Gregory V. Simpson, Ph.D. is a neuroscientist, formerly the Director of the Dynamic Neuroimaging Laboratory at UCSF, Co-Director, Dynamic Brain Activity Imaging Laboratory at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and a Senior Scientist at the Brain Plasticity Institute.

 

Decided to abandon the fire one,   hey ?

 

This above parroting has already been addressed in detail in the pitted Moi Pie threads , go there and read the answers .

 

Now,    Wandelaar PK ability test anyone   ?

 

 

 

Anyone ?

 

 

 

 

ANYONE   ?

 

 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg

[Ilovecoffee]

14 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

Frame by frame ?       

 

The crucial bit is cut out !    tears paper ... then its scrunched on the ground ... how is that frame by frame ?  then it cuts to the people watching him ... then back to John doing his fake efforts .

 

What do you mean by  " frame by frame "  ?

 

"What do you mean by  " frame by frame "  ?"

 

Videos are made up of frames or still images. Usually, you see about 30 frames per second.

 

8 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

Decided to abandon the fire one,   hey ?

 

This above parroting has already been addressed in detail in the pitted Moi Pie threads , go there and read the answers .

 

Now,    Wandelaar PK ability test anyone   ?

 

 

 

Anyone ?

 

 

 

 

ANYONE   ?

 

 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg

"This above parroting has already been addressed in detail"

 

There is has been lots of ear plugging and humming but no real addressing.  

 

The researchers included: the head of the Mind Science Foundation, a Ph.D. in neuroscience, and a medical doctor. They stripped the subject to his shirt and underwear and used a metal detector to check his body for metal. They received an indoor demo, then went outside for a second demo. They assumed some device on the property was causing the effect, so they took the subject to a random location for a third demo.Gregory V. Simpson, Ph.D. is a neuroscientist, formerly the Director of the Dynamic Neuroimaging Laboratory at UCSF, Co-Director, Dynamic Brain Activity Imaging Laboratory at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and a Senior Scientist at the Brain Plasticity Institute.

 

The event did happen and it was objectively captured on video.  You can argue that the researchers missed something, or that they were in on the hoax if you like though.

Edited May 28, 2018 by Ilovecoffee

[Nungali]

21 minutes ago, Ilovecoffee said:

 

"What do you mean by  " frame by frame "  ?"

 

Videos are made up of frames or still images. Usually, you see about 30 frames per second.

 

 

 

 

DUH !     so, won't or cant answer the question , eh ?    Just offer an obvious and  explanation about one of the words used in the phrase you used .

 

In case you really do not understand .....  what do you mean by the term  ' frame by frame'  .... you have the ability to break that vid down to each frame and analyse it ?  Even if you did you seem to miss the crucial point ....

 

Actually dont bother   as  ....   What is the point of examining something 'frame by frame'  if the essential part of the process has been edited out  !   (That means the 'frames' are not even in the film ! )

 

Jeeeze !

 

  ....  no wonder you dont get its fake ! 

 

Edited May 28, 2018 by Nungali

[Ilovecoffee]

8 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

 

DUH !     so, won't or cant answer the question , eh ?    Just offer an obvious and  explanation about one of the words used in the phrase you used .

 

In case you really do not understand .....  what do you mean by the term  ' frame by frame'  .... you have the ability to break that vid down to each frame and analyse it ?  Even if you did you seem to miss the crucial point ....

 

Actually dont bother   as  ....   What is the point of examining something 'frame by frame'  if the essential part of the process has been edited out  !   (That means the 'frames' are not even in the film ! )

 

Jeeeze !

 

  ....  no wonder you dont get its fake ! 

 

 

I have the original DVDs for the Ring of Fire: An Indonesian Odyssey Documentary.  Afterward, he stomps out the newspaper which Lawrence Blair provided, there is no sticky residue from a hidden plastic bag containing chemicals.  
 

"  ....  no wonder you dont get its fake ! "

 

I am much more interested in the newer footage of him with a team of scientists and medical doctors present doing their best to rule out fraud. 

[doc benway]

 

5 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

I already told you - "external qi" healing has been proven by "randomized controlled" science - aka "gold standard" science.

So why is that not good enough for you?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45168441_External_Qigong_for_Chronic_Pain

 

This "proof" is certainly not good enough for me.

While this study may be randomized and controlled, it is worthless.

 

23 participants reported an average subjective improvement in pain for 3 weeks compared to 20 "controls"

The standard deviation of each measurement was far greater than the magnitude of benefit compared to controls!

By 8 weeks, there was no significant benefit.

Many problems with this study -

 - very small sample size - 23 vs 20 subjects completed the study - statistical analysis of such small samples is meaningless, especially when evaluating something as subjective as pain

 - if you look at the results, the standard deviation is far greater than the difference between pain levels in the two groups, in a sample size this small that means there is no way to conclude that there is any difference between the 2 groups pain levels

 - 74% were receiving other treatments simultaneously and none of these were controlled for between the groups, multiple participants had medicines added, subtracted, and dosages changed during the study

 - the diagnoses were widely variable and not matched

 - demographic factors were not matched

 - to call pain chronic after 3 months is ridiculous, eg. a sprained finger is normally painful for 4-6 months

 - no standardized treatment for the qigong group, the practitioner did whatever they felt like with each subject

 - the non-qigong group knew they were not receiving any treatment, hence would be more likely to report no improvement

 - qigong patients received a 50% discount ($200) off the fee (!) which essentially means they were paid $200 each to say the treatment helped

 - there was a significant difference between prior awareness of qigong between the two treatment groups, this could certainly influence outcomes

 There are probably other more subtle issues, but these are more than enough to dismiss this study entirely.

 

You've got to do far better than this to "prove" external qigong is an effective "pharmacotherapy adjunct."

I'm not saying it is not effective but offering this study as "proof" simply makes you a victim of

6 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

the fake "scientism" tripe that the mass mind control people think is real. haha.

 

 

[doc benway]

8 hours ago, Ilovecoffee said:

 

"subjective experiences and anecdotal stories"

 

This is neither subjective nor anecdotal, it is objective.

As we've discussed before, objective and anecdotal are not mutually exclusive. 

A single video (even a few), may be objective under the right circumstances, but is (are) certainly anecdotal.

The word anectodal in the scientific community refers to a limited number of measurements or observations, too small to draw any statistically significant conclusions.

 

4 hours ago, Ilovecoffee said:

He invited a team of scientists and medical doctors to investigate him.

Scientists and medical doctors have no training in and are not experts in exposing fraud, they simply have no idea what to look for. 

Far better to have a street performer or magician on hand to do that.

You could take a whole team of scientists and doctors to a Chris Angel show and it's highly unlikely they could expose his tricks...

[vonkrankenhaus]

2 hours ago, Ilovecoffee said:

there is no sticky residue from a hidden plastic bag containing chemicals.

 

No. The solution is just put onto the paper. You can soak the paper in it, too.

 

No need of a bag at any point.

 

All you need to do is know how much carbon disulfide to use - this determines how long before it evaporates and the phosphorus ignites.

 

 

 

 

- VonKrankenhaus

[voidisyinyang]

9 minutes ago, steve said:

 - to call pain chronic after 3 months is ridiculous, eg. a sprained finger is normally painful for 4-6 months

 

 

Quote

Most had experienced pain for > 5 years (66%); the rest, for > 3 to 5 years (8%), 1 to 3 years (10%)

Let's do the math. 84% had the pain for over one year.

 

So then says 10% of the people had pain for less than 1 year and greater than 3 months.

 

So you are claiming that what 95% of the study was good based on your definition of chronic pain?

 

O.K. Sounds good to me!! And to the Dr. who led the study as well!

 

Quote

 

In contrast, our study was a randomly controlled clinical trial that demonstrated statistically significant results of

immediate reductions in pain intensity in persons with chronic pain after the 2nd, 3rd, and

4th EQT sessions. This finding is especially impressive given the long duration of pain

(>5years), in most of the participants.

 

 

 

The medication changes?

Quote

Specifically, there were six dose increases (3 EQT;3 EAT) and six dose decreases (4 EQT; 2 EAT).

Considering that their medication had not been working in the first place - for more of them over a year - doesn't seem too big of a deal.

 

And then you say - that at 8 weeks there was no difference. Yes that's because they only got 4 weeks of treatment and then WAITED 4 weeks to report if they were feeling anything at 8 weeks. So it's to be expected that after 4 weeks of no healing then they would not feel anything.

 

Quote

Four weekly visits were then set up for eachparticipant to come to the SFQ center for EQT or EAT.

 

 

[Ilovecoffee]

5 minutes ago, steve said:

As we've discussed before, objective and anecdotal are not mutually exclusive. 

A single video (even a few), may be objective under the right circumstances, but is (are) certainly anecdotal.

The word anectodal in the scientific community refers to a limited number of measurements or observations, too small to draw any statistically significant conclusions.

 

Scientists and medical doctors have no training in and are not experts in exposing fraud, they simply have no idea what to look for. 

Far better to have a street performer or magician on hand to do that.

You could take a whole team of scientists and doctors to a Chris Angel show and it's highly unlikely they could expose his tricks...

 

"As we've discussed before, objective and anecdotal are not mutually exclusive."

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdotal

 

"1. based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers"

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

 

1b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind  - objective reality

 

3a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretation

 

"certainly anecdotal."

 

This is not someone's personal testimony of what occurred. That is what anecdotal means, someone giving your their observation or report. The evidence was captured on video. It is not anecdotal as the camera is an impartial observer. A person with a Masters degree in English and a person with a PhD. in physics weighed in it is objective by definition.   You can argue that the researchers missed a device and this was a hoax, but you cannot argue it didn't occur.

 

"Scientists and medical doctors have no training in and are not experts in exposing fraud, they simply have no idea what to look for."

 

Gregory V. Simpson, Ph.D. is a neuroscientist, formerly the Director of the Dynamic Neuroimaging Laboratory at UCSF, Co-Director, Dynamic Brain Activity Imaging Laboratory at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and a Senior Scientist at the Brain Plasticity Institute.

 

John was stripped to his shirt and underwear and checked with a metal detector in an effort to rule out devices in his body.  He gave a demo indoors, outdoors, and then at a random location, the researchers chose to rule out devices hidden on his property. 

 

That is about as good as it is going to get Steve, yes maybe they missed something but I feel this was their best effort and done in good faith.  Perhaps an x-ray would have given extra reassurance there were no devices the metal detector missed.

 

"You could take a whole team of scientists and doctors to a Chris Angel show and it's highly unlikely they could expose his tricks..."

 

If a team of researchers stripped Chris Angel to a shirt and underwear and checked him for metal at a random location they chose he'd have a very hard time smuggling devices to produce a current like John.

[Ilovecoffee]

29 minutes ago, vonkrankenhaus said:

 

No. The solution is just put onto the paper. You can soak the paper in it, too.

 

No need of a bag at any point.

 

All you need to do is know how much carbon disulfide to use - this determines how long before it evaporates and the phosphorus ignites.

 

 

 

 

- VonKrankenhaus

 

"You can soak the paper in it, too."

 

Lawrence Blair claimed to have provided the newspaper for the demonstration.

[Mudfoot]

2 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

 

The medication changes?

Considering that their medication had not been working in the first place - for more of them over a year - doesn't seem too big of a deal.

Since there were more positive changes in medication in the control group, this is at least interesting. 

Quote

 

And then you say - that at 8 weeks there was no difference. Yes that's because they only got 4 weeks of treatment and then WAITED 4 weeks to report if they were feeling anything at 8 weeks. So it's to be expected that after 4 weeks of no healing then they would not feel anything.

So the two masters agreed to do just four treatments knowing that four treatments is not enough to get a result? 

 

That is a failed IQ test (that is fucking stupid behaviour). 

 

There are a couple of things you can say about this:

It is not placebo-controlled. 

Variables except VAS did not show changes (I read it quickly, might have missed that). 

Effect waned off with in four weeks (non-significant difference = no difference) and the treatment had no effect on medication. 

 

I would say that this was an interesting pilot study, but with an obviously flawed method it is not "gold standard", it is just another study that you cannot draw conclusions from. 

 

On the other hand, it is in good company with the majority of clinical studies published today. 

 

When using instruments like GRADE, there is a huge amount of published, peer-reviewed research that is excluded from further anslysis because they are substandard. 

 

For therapists with an interest in these modalities this is very frustration, these grading criteria are public, so why not look at them when constructing a study? 

 

It is true, as the authors state, that with more subjects they might have got a statistically signifikant result. 

Larger group =smaller changes can be detected. 

When this is the case, in comes the question whether the result is clinically relevant or not. 

Edited May 28, 2018 by Mudfoot
Added sentence

[doc benway]

3 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

 

Let's do the math. 84% had the pain for over one year.

 

So then says 10% of the people had pain for less than 1 year and greater than 3 months.

 

So you are claiming that what 95% of the study was good based on your definition of chronic pain?

 No, you are claiming that and ignoring all the other problems I listed. The study is fatally flawed. 

Even the < 3 month subjects are more of a problem than you may think. Removing them after the fact invalidates the results. Removing them before hand may completely invalidate the already borderline statistical significance.

 

3 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

 

O.K. Sounds good to me!! And to the Dr. who led the study as well!

That doesn’t make it any less flawed.

 

3 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

 

The medication changes?

Considering that their medication had not been working in the first place - for more of them over a year - doesn't seem too big of a deal.

That’s a gratuitous assertion. The pain levels were quite low to begin with.

 

3 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

And then you say - that at 8 weeks there was no difference. Yes that's because they only got 4 weeks of treatment and then WAITED 4 weeks to report if they were feeling anything at 8 weeks. So it's to be expected that after 4 weeks of no healing then they would not feel anything.

None of these conclusions have anything to do with science or proof. You’ve already reached your conclusions and are trying to use flawed data to support it. Fake scientism tripe. Randomization alone does not constitute the scientific method.

[doc benway]

2 hours ago, Ilovecoffee said:

 

"As we've discussed before, objective and anecdotal are not mutually exclusive."

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdotal

 

"1. based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers"

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

 

1b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind  - objective reality

 

3a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretation

 

"certainly anecdotal."

 

This is not someone's personal testimony of what occurred. That is what anecdotal means, someone giving your their observation or report. The evidence was captured on video. It is not anecdotal as the camera is an impartial observer. A person with a Masters degree in English and a person with a PhD. in physics weighed in it is objective by definition.   You can argue that the researchers missed a device and this was a hoax, but you cannot argue it didn't occur.

The camera is not an observer at all. It is not capable of sight or interpretation. The camera operator is the observer and is most likely partial.

 

2 hours ago, Ilovecoffee said:

 

"Scientists and medical doctors have no training in and are not experts in exposing fraud, they simply have no idea what to look for."

 

Gregory V. Simpson, Ph.D. is a neuroscientist, formerly the Director of the Dynamic Neuroimaging Laboratory at UCSF, Co-Director, Dynamic Brain Activity Imaging Laboratory at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and a Senior Scientist at the Brain Plasticity Institute.

 

John was stripped to his shirt and underwear and checked with a metal detector in an effort to rule out devices in his body.  He gave a demo indoors, outdoors, and then at a random location, the researchers chose to rule out devices hidden on his property. 

 

That is about as good as it is going to get Steve,

Perhaps, but not good enough to call it scientific or proof of anything.

 

2 hours ago, Ilovecoffee said:

 

yes maybe they missed something but I feel this was their best effort and done in good faith. 

That’s an assumption you may be willing to make, not me.

I suspect they were biased observers anticipating a particular outcome.

 

2 hours ago, Ilovecoffee said:

 

 

 Perhaps an x-ray would have given extra reassurance there were no devices the metal detector missed.

 

"You could take a whole team of scientists and doctors to a Chris Angel show and it's highly unlikely they could expose his tricks..."

 

If a team of researchers stripped Chris Angel to a shirt and underwear and checked him for metal at a random location they chose he'd have a very hard time smuggling devices to produce a current like John.

You’re underestimating Chris

[Nungali]

6 hours ago, Ilovecoffee said:

 

I have the original DVDs for the Ring of Fire: An Indonesian Odyssey Documentary.  Afterward, he stomps out the newspaper which Lawrence Blair provided, there is no sticky residue from a hidden plastic bag containing chemicals.  
 

"  ....  no wonder you dont get its fake ! "

 

I am much more interested in the newer footage of him with a team of scientists and medical doctors present doing their best to rule out fraud. 

 

Oh, I see, the ones on the internet are not the real original ones you have ... the unedited versions ...  .  

[Nungali]

4 hours ago, vonkrankenhaus said:

 

No. The solution is just put onto the paper. You can soak the paper in it, too.

 

No need of a bag at any point.

 

All you need to do is know how much carbon disulfide to use - this determines how long before it evaporates and the phosphorus ignites.

 

 

 

 

- VonKrankenhaus

 

 

and thats the point at which you make  'claw hand'  over the paper and concentrate and shake real hard and ......   poof !

 

( Even Pen and  Teller get fooled sometimes, professionals that cant figure how a trick was done      )

[Nungali]

3 hours ago, Ilovecoffee said:

 

"You can soak the paper in it, too."

 

Lawrence Blair claimed to have provided the newspaper for the demonstration.

 

yet the internet films show non of this, nor any posted here  ... more 'private collection' material is it ? 

[wandelaar]

Last attempt: this topic is not about chi gong, videos, medical issues, magicians, fake, etc. 

 

It's about setting up a simple experiment with an online random number generator, and finding some people willing to test their supposed PK ability. Why make it more difficult than it is?

[Nungali]

Look, I'll do the friggen test, just to stop this diversion and nonsense.

 

What is it, let me at it !

 

Do I knock over I Love Coffee's  coffee mug ?  Is that good enough ? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nungali]

3 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

Last attempt: this topic is not about chi gong, videos, medical issues, magicians, fake, etc. 

 

It's about setting up a simple experiment with an online random number generator, and finding some people willing to test their supposed PK ability. Why make it more difficult than it is?

 

 

Because they are scared of tests. And are trying to divert and subvert it.

 

I'll do it.

[wandelaar]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

Because they are scared of tests. And are trying to divert and subvert it.

 

I'll do it.

 

OK - to make it all work we have to find out which site or application to use. And maybe we need some help from the moderators. That is: if they also consider it a good idea to have some application for testing PK running on The Dao Bums as well.

 

But lets start simple. Searching on the internet I found this site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random.org

 

You could for instance use Coin Flipper or Dice Roller. This will do for personal tests, but we will have to find a way to view the results directly on this website later.

[voidisyinyang]

1 hour ago, wandelaar said:

 

OK - to make it all work we have to find out which site or application to use. And maybe we need some help from the moderators. That is: if they also consider it a good idea to have some application for testing PK running on The Dao Bums as well.

 

But lets start simple. Searching on the internet I found this site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random.org

 

You could for instance use Coin Flipper or Dice Roller. This will do for personal tests, but we will have to find a way to view the results directly on this website later.

If you want to be scientific - first acknowledge that the foundation of reality is quantum nonlocal proto-consciousness. Then ponder if randomness is actually real and how you could actually devise it. That is what Scientific American has done.

https://www.americanscientist.org/article/quantum-randomness

This is called the "Eternal Triangle Effect" in the Science and Paranormal link I posted earlier - by Pierre Noyes who ran the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.

 

 

[Ilovecoffee]

5 hours ago, steve said:

The camera is not an observer at all. It is not capable of sight or interpretation. The camera operator is the observer and is most likely partial.

 

Perhaps, but not good enough to call it scientific or proof of anything.

 

That’s an assumption you may be willing to make, not me.

I suspect they were biased observers anticipating a particular outcome.

 

You’re underestimating Chris

 

"The camera is not an observer at all."

 

"With them, there is an impartial observer that can show everyone what really happened. That fosters trust. And that trust is essential to the success of local police departments, and to the safety of both officers and citizens."

 

"It is not capable of ... interpretation"

 

Police wear body cams and people install dash cams because there is no he said she said nonsense. What actually occurred is recorded, no agenda, no spin, no bias, no slant just the raw data as it occurred.  It is by definition objective, as opposed to subjective.
 

"not good enough to call it scientific or proof of anything."

 

We say it is objective evidence because by definition it is. There was also a team of scientists and medical doctors who did their best to rule out fraud.  You are correct it does not prove they missed a device. They may have missed something in his body and this may be a hoax.  The event did however occur and was objectively recorded hoax or no.
 

"That’s an assumption you may be willing to make, not me."

 

Well, I suppose you are free to believe they were in on the hoax and willing to get egg on their face and be laughed at by their colleagues for the few bucks that Lawrence Blair bribed them with.

 

Gregory V. Simpson, Ph.D. is a neuroscientist, formerly the Director of the Dynamic Neuroimaging Laboratory at UCSF, Co-Director, Dynamic Brain Activity Imaging Laboratory at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and a Senior Scientist at the Brain Plasticity Institute.

 

"You’re underestimating Chris"

 

Stripping someone to a shirt and underwear, using a metal detector to check their body for devices, and taking them to a random location you choose is about as good as we can do short of an x-ray to rule out nonmetallic devices inside a body cavity.

[Ilovecoffee]

4 hours ago, wandelaar said:

Last attempt: this topic is not about chi gong, videos, medical issues, magicians, fake, etc. 

 

It's about setting up a simple experiment with an online random number generator, and finding some people willing to test their supposed PK ability. Why make it more difficult than it is?

 

"There appear to be a lot of people on this forum who claim to possess or have witnessed paranormal phenomena. Now as this is a serious matter, subjective experiences and anecdotal stories are not considered as solid scientific proof."

 

You wanted evidence of PK without subjective experiences or anecdotal stories.   I don't think the output from a true RNG is going to convince anyone of anything.  Supposedly there was a huge anomaly in the global consciousness project at Princeton before 9/11, but everyone just yawns about that.

[Ilovecoffee]

4 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

yet the internet films show non of this, nor any posted here  ... more 'private collection' material is it ? 

 

You can rent it from Netflix DVD rental or purchase it here.

[wandelaar]

The few useful posts in this topic have by now been effectively drowned in irrelevant preaching by the believers....