When Ordinary Science Fails to Explain

[Rudy(CA)]

A simple 'I don't know' would be a lot better for you to get out with...

Some skeptics always choose to think of something else when the answer is under their nose, crystaline as spring water and also when this truth might implode their long time inherited wrong concepts.
It must hurt a lot and confuse their brains... So, what it the easiest way out? Magicians, tricks and parlor shows...
How pathetic.

you are conjecturing that Miroslaw's ability to attract metals and plastics are due to some biomagnetism on his part, simply because
he has said that is how he does it. It is just a conjecture and a conjecture is not a proof but simply a ,not always plausible, possible explanation.

Is this the best that your supposed scientific knowledge can produce? How come you dare then talk about scientific concepts regarding LRLs? You cannot produce a miserable piece of rational scientific explanation for this case.
You talk about conjectures? Do you think people like Dr. Ruhenstroth-Bauer of the Max Plank Institute and Dr. Korotkov are still making conjectures about how Miroslaw takes a rabbit out of the hat? Let's pretend that you have not stated that.
Next.

My conjecture is that it is just a parlor trick.
I should add that I do not understand how a magician manages to climb into a box and seconds later reappear inside another box. However, even though I can't explain how he did it, I still don't believe that he has somehow mastered teleportation.

Only one difference. For a true inquiring scientist, scientific events are not parlor tricks and the agent of the phenomena is not a magician.

There are usually two types of skeptics. The first type is the skeptic who remains a skeptic no matter what kind of proof he gets about how wrong he is. Their ego is so huge and he developed such a bypolar syndrome that in case he ever admited he made a mistake he would probably collapse in a serious depressive state. This is the pathological type.

And there is the second type of skeptic. This type remains skeptical until a factual event proves he was mistaken. He then has no problems at all to rectify his wrong concepts. He might move on being skeptical at something else but not at that former concept anymore. This is the natural behaviorist type.

What kind of skeptic types are present in this forum?
In which category do you fall into Dr. Rudy?

It is precisely because you have not established a connection between this magnetic man and LRLs that I don't take this manure you are dishing out seriously. You haven't given any proof aside from those infantile videos. You should also note that Dr. Ruhenstroth-Bauer of the Max Plank Institute said that "he would like to study him", clearly meaning he hasn't so can can you conclude anything in that regard? Also, if you look up Dr. Ruhenstroth-Bauer, you'd quickly realize that physics is not his field. Look at some of his papers on cell biology.

Speaking of physics, a real famous one, which I had the distinct privilege of meeting when he was still alive, said the following about another hero of yours, Uri Geller.

"Because a good magician can do something shouldn't make you right away
jump to the conclusion that it's a real phenomenon." —Richard Feynman

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[EE THr]

Big J---

#29-30-24, in the link below.





Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's test?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[hung]

It is precisely because you have not established a connection between this magnetic man and LRLs that I don't take this manure you are dishing out seriously. You haven't given any proof aside from those infantile videos. You should also note that Dr. Ruhenstroth-Bauer of the Max Plank Institute said that "he would like to study him", clearly meaning he hasn't so can can you conclude anything in that regard? Also, if you look up Dr. Ruhenstroth-Bauer, you'd quickly realize that physics is not his field. Look at some of his papers on cell biology.

Speaking of physics, a real famous one, which I had the distinct privilege of meeting when he was still alive, said the following about another hero of yours, Uri Geller.

"Because a good magician can do something shouldn't make you right away
jump to the conclusion that it's a real phenomenon." —Richard Feynman

Despite your disastrous reluctant manner of simply stating 'I don't know' regarding that case and trying to remedy that by insisting in idiot 'non sequiturs' even worse, you had the guts to reply when all the other skeptics here cowardly avoided it.
So now we know what some skeptics here are worth when they face the unknown that might appear a threat to their agendas. Not a single penny.

Dr. Feynman had the right of making wrong judgements as anybody else while still alive.
But I'm sure that now in his new reality, he is redefining this and maybe other mistaken concepts as well as he has no choice.

In the next few days, you will have even a better chance than Dr. Feyman's while you are still alive.
It's up to you and the other skeptics here honestly answer that little question posted.

'What kind of skeptic am I, #1 or #2?'

 

[EE THr]

hung-up---

"When Ordinary Science Fails to Explain," it probably is a fraud.

But that's just probably. It doesn't mean that unexplainable things are always fraudulent.

Some unexplainable things have proven themselves to be true.

However, you, and your LRLs, Have not.

If you had any confidence at all in your own BS, you would cut the crap and prove yourself in Carl's test.

All the sick-ology and fake science you can dream up won't do a darn thing, if you can't pass the test of proof.

Is reality giving you a hard time? Is that why you turn to fantasy?

Well, don't make the claim, if you can't take the blame.




Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's test?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[hung]

I claim that a human being making use of no metal or magnetic apparatus of any kind but his own bare hands and away from a compass CAN emit a magnetic field to affect and deflect the compass needle. I have enough evidence and proof to back up my claim.

WHO is going to refute this claim?

 

[hung]

I claim that the magnetic field produced by a human being and capable of deflect a compass needle also affects a magnetometer and can be measured by it.
I have enough evidence and proof to back up my claim.

WHO is going to refute this claim?

 

[Rudy(CA)]

I claim that a human being making use of no metal or magnetic apparatus of any kind but his own bare hands and away from a compass CAN emit a magnetic field to affect and deflect the compass needle. I have enough evidence and proof to back up my claim.

WHO is going to refute this claim?

Claim duly recorded. Now prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Rudy(CA)]

I claim that the magnetic field produced by a human being and capable of deflect a compass needle also affects a magnetometer and can be measured by it.
I have enough evidence and proof to back up my claim.

WHO is going to refute this claim?

This is a trivial claim. Surely a magnetic field that affects a compass needle would also be detectable by a magnetometer.

 

[Saturna]

hung-up---


If you had any confidence at all in your own BS, you would cut the crap and prove yourself in Carl's test.

All the sick-ology and fake science you can dream up won't do a darn thing, if you can't pass the test of proof.

Is reality giving you a hard time? Is that why you turn to fantasy?

Well, don't make the claim, if you can't take the blame.

That basically is what it all boils down to.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI rudy, unfortunately psychosomatic / psychological factors effects your Magnetometer test. A cold, impersonal maggie is not the same as a comfortable, warm lil compass that you can cup in between your palms.

It has been proven that when a sector of the populace performs tests, they almost always perform better with a warm, charismatic tester than a cold, aloof, formal one, why?

Incidentally the same laws or results specifically apply to testing dowsing or lrl's.

don Jose de La Mnacha

 

[aarthrj3811]

Hey Don..Who do you expect them to believe ? Real people or Randi

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Dace_amazing3.htm
So it’s ironic that actual science was hardly touched on. Instead it was one speaker after another reinforcing the conceit, almost universal among conference participants, that they are the enlightened ones, that they are charged with the burden of defending sense against nonsense, that they alone can be counted on to stand their ground against the tide of irrationalism that threatens to engulf our civilization and undo all the gains that have been wrought in the name of Science. Even scientists themselves, it turns out, are no match for the diabolical paranormalists. Only skeptics, educated by James “Amazing” Randi and other magicians, are capable of spotting the tricks of the trade. “Scientists are easily fooled,” explained Randi, “because they think they know.” But only skeptics really know.

 

[Saturna]

Hahaha, are YOU an example of what you're referring to as 'real people' ?


Hahahahahahahahahahahaahhaha

 

[aarthrj3811]

Hahaha, are YOU an example of what you're referring to as 'real people' ?

No one leads me by the nose so I know for a fact that I am not a Randi Clone..

 

[EE THr]

A cold, impersonal maggie is not the same as a comfortable, warm lil compass that you can cup in between your palms.

It has been proven that when a sector of the populace performs tests, they almost always perform better with a warm, charismatic tester than a cold, aloof, formal one, why?

Incidentally the same laws or results specifically apply to testing dowsing or lrl's.

don Jose de La Mnacha

I don't see in any LRL ads that "warm, charismatic" trees, soil, and rocks, are required to find treasure!

Does an LRL qualify as a "warm lil" locating device, "that you can cup in between your palms?"


Or is the warm stuff the makers want to "cup in between their palms," just your money?

 

[Rudy(CA)]

HI rudy, unfortunately psychosomatic / psychological factors effects your Magnetometer test. A cold, impersonal maggie is not the same as a comfortable, warm lil compass that you can cup in between your palms.

It has been proven that when a sector of the populace performs tests, they almost always perform better with a warm, charismatic tester than a cold, aloof, formal one, why?

Incidentally the same laws or results specifically apply to testing dowsing or lrl's.

don Jose de La Mnacha

DJ, apparently you need to have your spectacle prescription updated.

A "warm lil compass that you can cup in between your palms." as you stated, is not all at what Dr Hung posited. He clearly stated "I claim that a human being making use of no metal or magnetic apparatus of any kind but his own bare hands and away from a compass CAN emit a magnetic field to affect and deflect the compass needle."

Clearly, warm lil compass is not going to be held in anyones palms.

 

[fenixdigger]

Art, you speak of the Lone Ranger complex. Covers Defender of the Realm, and Lone Sentinel issues, usually tied into a "Caesar" or Napoleonic issue. I have seen pictures of the experimental treatment procedures, I'll see if I can find it

 

[EE THr]

Art, you speak of the Lone Ranger complex. Covers Defender of the Realm, and Lone Sentinel issues, usually tied into a "Caesar" or Napoleonic issue. I have seen pictures of the experimental treatment procedures, I'll see if I can find it

Another wannabe sick-iatrist.

Predicted behavior, see #22 in the link below.

"Comment about the above list: Even though this list has been up for awhile, the LRL promoters continue to perform according to these Predictions! Apparently they don't care about being exposed by the scientifically accepted Proof of Prediction standard. They just can't stop themselves! Very interesting. But also very sad."

And obvious #24.





Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

It’s real simple LT
It is a common psychological problem in that insecure people tend to project their personal deficiencies unto another in self defense, they are sure trying to pass theirs lack of knowledge over to you

 

[EE THr]

It’s real simple LT
It is a common psychological problem in that insecure people tend to project their personal deficiencies unto another in self defense, they are sure trying to pass theirs lack of knowledge over to you

When ordinary science fails to explain LRLs, just resort to Science Fiction!

And when that fails also, try to change the subject, with nonsense ad hominem attacks!



Internet Troll, Wikipedia.

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.







Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[EE THr]

When ordinary science fails to explain something, the only recourse is to prove it scientifically.






Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?