ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 11th March 2019, 03:03 PM   #241
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,763
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
>Someone who has never heard of "Criminal Minds," and who didn't know the score of the last Super Bowl, is lecturing us on how American television works.

Don't send me attempted ridicule, and you won't have to deal with my going a little far.
Should we tally the insults both in quality and quantity and see who has slung more?
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 03:06 PM   #242
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,763
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
I don't claim the Caputo Macklemore reading was impressive.
It was a Henry Macklemore reading. And, yes, you have claimed it impressive; you did so in the post just before this one.


Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin
For impressive, I copied instead a small part of transcripts I have on John Edward's readings. He's been around a lot longer than Henry, and he's easier to quantify based on the type of reading he does. Plus, I documented Edwards, I have not done that with Henry. I posted the Edwards stuff earlier today, and you can tell me how it is done.
Again, I will not play whack a mole with you. Stick with Henry. He's the one you started with, the one you repeatedly claim must be legitimate, and the one you repeatedly refuse to show a video that is the impressive one.

Now if you're ready to admit that you were wrong in your assessment about Henry, I'll be happy to move on to Edward.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 03:16 PM   #243
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,763
And if you decide to acknowledge that you were wrong about Henry and we move on to Edward, you'll have to provide an actual transcript. What you posted is not remotely a transcript; it is cherry-picked statements, some of which have been discussed at length on this forum. The one that stands out most to me is the drinking milk straight from the cow one. Not impressive at all.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 03:22 PM   #244
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,763
Last bit before waiting for Frank to respond: Even though the Macklemore reading was almost certainly a hot reading, it didn't have to be. All of that could be done with a cold reading of a celebrity even if Henry really didn't know it was going to be Macklemore. Read my dissection of it and notice where the generalities are and when the specifics come and the outs Henry leaves himself.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 03:31 PM   #245
Frank McLaughlin
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by bytewizard View Post
I'll play along and pretend Henry does communicate with dead. If Henry can really talk to the dead, how about solving some open murder investigations or clearing up missing persons cases?

Henry tells people that their dear departed family members enjoyed making turquoise jewelry or some other mundane thing. Wouldn't it be fantastic to watch Henry/dear departed/ghosts actually name the person that killed them. Something like Henry saying "The coroner said I had a stroke, but guess what! Remember my chef friend Kim? Remember that rare blow fish sushi he served me? He poisoned me!

Now that would be a cold reading.
(1) Maybe Henry has identified missing persons. That's a difficult area to go to because, what if you are wrong? That would be horrible, and how can you be sure you are right? There is no verification. Maybe you are mislead. The person on the other side who is telling you they are Aunt Myrtle, is instead someone doing something malicious.

(2) Maybe dead people don't know where a missing person is anymore than you do. Because I'm dead, it does not follow that I'm omniscient.

(3) You will note in a reading Henry might bring in two people. What about everyone else? I've got 50 dead relatives and friends, but maybe they are not available, don't want to make the effort, have incarnated back on earth, entered the Christian Heaven. Maybe they are focused elsewhere, and don't care about things on earth, which are trivial. Who knows?

(4) Dead people don't communicate (I presume) by moving vocal cords to vibrate air against an ear drum. Presumably, they have no body. Theresa calls them "spirit."

How do you communicate to Henry that you died in Costa Rica? Much info I suspect is hard to get across.

(5) Maybe once I"m dead, I see that things exist as they should be and I have no need or desire to start doing police work. Hard to believe that what is important to you during your time on earth will carry much interest once you have left. Some are willing I guess to talk to people on earth if it benefits them. Not important to them however.

Keep in mind I have no idea exactly what is going on. Is Henry really talking to dead people? Maybe there is another explanation. And if not, how is he and Edward doing what they do?
__________________
Formerly known as member frank3373
Frank McLaughlin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 03:35 PM   #246
Frank McLaughlin
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
And if you decide to acknowledge that you were wrong about Henry and we move on to Edward, you'll have to provide an actual transcript. What you posted is not remotely a transcript; it is cherry-picked statements, some of which have been discussed at length on this forum. The one that stands out most to me is the drinking milk straight from the cow one. Not impressive at all.
It would be pretty hard for me to acknowledge I'm wrong about Henry when no one has presented any evidence for that.

The statements are cherry-picked, yes. That has no bearing on my claim unless we decide that Edward didn't really say that and the NY Times reporter made it up. I do not have an official transcript. How could I unless I went to a session and recorded it.
__________________
Formerly known as member frank3373
Frank McLaughlin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 03:42 PM   #247
Frank McLaughlin
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
Last bit before waiting for Frank to respond: Even though the Macklemore reading was almost certainly a hot reading, it didn't have to be. All of that could be done with a cold reading of a celebrity even if Henry really didn't know it was going to be Macklemore. Read my dissection of it and notice where the generalities are and when the specifics come and the outs Henry leaves himself.
If all that could be done with a cold reading, why don't you show me a cold reading that is good or at least one not comically bad?

How good Henry is isn't dependent on any one reading. Your logic here is ridiculous. As for a cold reading, Henry wasn't looking at Macklemore for most of the tape. Derren by contrast was staring at this audience looking for clues, and he was fishing. Henry was not.

As for hot reading, you are accusing a lot of people of fraud, which is certainly possible. But that does not explain the many times Henry identifies information that was only known to the subject he is reading. The three people involved were certainly impressed.
__________________
Formerly known as member frank3373
Frank McLaughlin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 03:51 PM   #248
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,612
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
It is, actually, given that (1) I did it before I watched the Macklemore video and (2) Macklemore said it couldn't be done.
The disparity between what people think can be done and what they can actually do (either as individuals or as a species) is, in my estimation, the core of magical art. With physical magic, sometimes our perception of form, space, and time are simply wrong. Magicians learn specific ways in which they're wrong, or can be fooled. They play on our spatial assumptions: I was fooled by Penn & Teller, in their presence, by being foolish enough to assume that if there was a screw head at the junction of two slats, there was a screw behind it that went all the way through.

And then there are people who work hard to be extremely slender, extremely flexible, or to tolerate astonishing amounts of pain, or who -- as individuals -- develop some physical trait that far exceeds the normal person. Thus in this case our expectations for the general population remain valid, but they are violated for just that one case. Indeed that person is very special, but not necessarily in the way suggested by the story he wraps around his special ability.

Human memory seems to be a good bit of stock in trade for the mentalist. We don't bat an eye when actors on the stage recite hours of dialogue without consulting a script. Nor when individual musicians rattle off from memory intricate piano pieces containing thousands of notes. Yet when someone memorizes where each of 52 cards has been hidden on a set -- yes, there's a technique for doing this -- we're suddenly agog. The mentalist tells the rube he's hidden the same card on the set that he's now going to have the rube pull from a shuffled, ungimmicked deck. "Hm, the nine of spades," thinks the magician to himself. "Nine of spades, 'spine of Hades.'" Then he tells the rube, "Go over to that bookshelf and get the copy of Dante's Inferno. Tell me what you find inside the front cover." Well, duh, it's the nine of spades he pre-placed, and remembered its position with a simple rhyme.

Tyler Henry may indeed be a very remarkable person, indeed perhaps even singular. He could, for example, have an exceptional memory for details that his team of researchers serve up for each guest. More so that I or someone else could possibly keep straight. That would make him able to perform impressive feats of supposed insight, that he can then attribute to ghost-whispering. And that would be a legitimate skill I would be willing to pay to witness.

Except when he says he's going to use this nonsense to help the grieving parents of juvenile suicide, that's where I draw the line. That's grief vampirism, the scourge of what otherwise could be an honest living.

Quote:
Option 1: The laws of physics are not as we know them, and something that has repeatedly failed when tested under laboratory conditions is now suddenly true.

Option 2: Television shows and television star hopefuls are shady in what they are doing and how they present it.

Frank McLaughlin: Option 1, of course.
I tried to bring up parsimony earlier, to no avail. Here we have lots of people who fake these sorts of readings. Some are passable fakes and others are very good fakes -- they admit to being fakes. There are books and workshops you can consult to learn the techniques, and people to help you practice them. The psychological and analytical principles behind them have been adapted to other areas of human interaction, such as police interrogation, where no hint of necromancy is either present or required. Yet for some reason the notion of parsimony goes out the window when some people want to talk about necromancy. For them the easiest explanation is talking to the dead.

Early books on magic tell how to construct an apparatus that, when employed by a practiced artisan and two flexible assistants can produce observations apparently explained by having sawn a woman in half non-fatally. And then, naturally, restoring her whole again. Once you've been told the secret of this trick, you subsequently look for how the trick is done when you see it again. And so the challenge for modern magicians is to do it in a way that precludes all the ways people become accustomed to seeing through the trick. This requires magicians to become more and more clever, even shifting strategies altogether from clumsy, barely-hidden compartments to, say, mirrors that create the illusion of empty space.

But at no time does the magician ever contemplate actually sawing the woman in half.

When we get to necromancy, the true believers acknowledge some semblance of the various techniques employed. Then they insist that despite the fact that magic (including mentalism) is an ever-evolving field, always one or two steps ahead of the rubes, it must really involve talking to dead people, because the one clunky trick he's thinking of obviously hasn't been applied here. The true believers are always so eager to give the benefit of the doubt to the claim of true necromancy. "Well yeah, Tom and Dick used tricks, but Harry really is sawing a lady in half!" Parsimony is the only real victim of that scenario.

Quote:
Revised claim: Tyler Henry might be wrong sometimes, but it doesn't prove anything.
Not from the cherry-picked sample of a program produced and edited by his friends, it doesn't. Our own resident fortune-teller, PartSkeptic, refused to keep a tally of his hits and misses, but still insisted he and his Tarot cards could make meaningful predictions about the future. Naturally his skeptical interlocutors here kept track for him. Despite his feeling that he was generally right more than he was wrong, he was statistically quite wrong.

But yeah, back to the topic, you don't get to praise a medium and extol proof of the afterlife on the basis of his win-loss record unless he actually has a win-loss record that significantly exceeds chance.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 03:56 PM   #249
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,612
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
As for hot reading, you are accusing a lot of people of fraud...
No. You are accusing your critics of making heinous accusations with poor evidence, when they are in fact making reasonable accusations with sufficient evidence. The accusation that someone using hot-reading instead of actually talking to the dead is simply characterizing the exercise as the same way such feats have been accomplished by others in the past, fully admitted-to -- and in some cases conclusively proven -- by their practitioners.

Your argument needs to get past simply shaming your critics.

"He doesn't really saw the lady in half."
"What?? Of course he does! Look for yourself! You're accusing him of fraud, you horrible person, you."
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 03:58 PM   #250
bytewizard
Master Poster
 
bytewizard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: In the woods
Posts: 2,023
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
(4) Dead people don't communicate (I presume) by moving vocal cords to vibrate air against an ear drum. Presumably, they have no body. Theresa calls them "spirit."

How do you communicate to Henry that you died in Costa Rica? Much info I suspect is hard to get across.
"your mother kept a giant bowl of buttons on a shelf in her bedroom closet" was easy to get across, but "your mother was killed by Frank Jones" is too difficult?
bytewizard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 04:01 PM   #251
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,763
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
(1) Maybe Henry has identified missing persons. That's a difficult area to go to because, what if you are wrong? That would be horrible, and how can you be sure you are right? There is no verification. Maybe you are mislead. The person on the other side who is telling you they are Aunt Myrtle, is instead someone doing something malicious.

(2) Maybe dead people don't know where a missing person is anymore than you do. Because I'm dead, it does not follow that I'm omniscient.

(3) You will note in a reading Henry might bring in two people. What about everyone else? I've got 50 dead relatives and friends, but maybe they are not available, don't want to make the effort, have incarnated back on earth, entered the Christian Heaven. Maybe they are focused elsewhere, and don't care about things on earth, which are trivial. Who knows?

(4) Dead people don't communicate (I presume) by moving vocal cords to vibrate air against an ear drum. Presumably, they have no body. Theresa calls them "spirit."

How do you communicate to Henry that you died in Costa Rica? Much info I suspect is hard to get across.

(5) Maybe once I"m dead, I see that things exist as they should be and I have no need or desire to start doing police work. Hard to believe that what is important to you during your time on earth will carry much interest once you have left. Some are willing I guess to talk to people on earth if it benefits them. Not important to them however.

Keep in mind I have no idea exactly what is going on. Is Henry really talking to dead people? Maybe there is another explanation. And if not, how is he and Edward doing what they do?
MY paraphrase: "Sure, it's not all that impressive, but since I can think of reasons why it isn't it really is."


Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
It would be pretty hard for me to acknowledge I'm wrong about Henry when no one has presented any evidence for that.
Yes, I have. You choose to ignore it.


Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin
The statements are cherry-picked, yes. That has no bearing on my claim unless we decide that Edward didn't really say that and the NY Times reporter made it up. I do not have an official transcript. How could I unless I went to a session and recorded it.
You called it a transcript; don't blame me when I point out it isn't a transcript.

If I'm remembering past discussions here correctly, you got that from a Michael Prescott essay on his website. It fell apart under scrutiny.

And if you do not understand why cherry picked statements are not proof then you are unqualified to make your assessments about mediumship on yet another front.


Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
If all that could be done with a cold reading, why don't you show me a cold reading that is good or at least one not comically bad?
Quite a humorous request from someone who refuses to pick a Henry reading and say "This is a good one that I stand by."

Do that first since it's the topic of the thread, and we'll stop playing whack a mole. Until then, as I've said, you are simply tacitly admitting with every post that you have no evidence for your claim.


Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin
How good Henry is isn't dependent on any one reading. Your logic here is ridiculous.
Excellent! We're making progress. How many is it dependent on? Of course to answer that you will have to reveal your work with statistics on how many hits out of how many total statements are significant. And that's just the start because you'll first have to define what a hit is (or several degrees of a hit).

You've done this, yes?


Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin
As for a cold reading, Henry wasn't looking at Macklemore for most of the tape.
First, it's a ridiculous claim indicating yet again how little you know.

Second, it's a claim you cannot possibly make given that the camera is not even on Henry for a majority of the time, especially when Macklemore is speaking and that is precisely when Henry would be looking at him, even if not obviously.

You have even run out of the straws you are attempting to grasp.



Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin
Derren by contrast was staring at this audience looking for clues, and he was fishing. Henry was not.
You didn't even read what I wrote, did you? Henry not only fished, he asked questions before he fed the answer back as if he had originated it, and he gave contradictory responses so he could go down whichever path Macklemore confirmed.


Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin
As for hot reading, you are accusing a lot of people of fraud, which is certainly possible. But that does not explain the many times Henry identifies information that was only known to the subject he is reading. The three people involved were certainly impressed.
Their being impressed means nothing, as you have so ably demonstrated with you musical anecdote. As to what Henry could not possibly have known, please enlighten me exactly which ones they are. Remember that you brought up Macklemore and said it was impressive, and Macklemore said it couldn't have been Googled. Macklemore was wrong.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 04:04 PM   #252
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,763
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No. You are accusing your critics of making heinous accusations with poor evidence, when they are in fact making reasonable accusations with sufficient evidence. The accusation that someone using hot-reading instead of actually talking to the dead is simply characterizing the exercise as the same way such feats have been accomplished by others in the past, fully admitted-to -- and in some cases conclusively proven -- by their practitioners.

Your argument needs to get past simply shaming your critics.

"He doesn't really saw the lady in half."
"What?? Of course he does! Look for yourself! You're accusing him of fraud, you horrible person, you."
To be fair to Frank, I have actually used the word "fraud" in connection with Henry, but only in connection with Henry.

If I were being completely scientific, I would revise it to say that what Henry does is indistinguishable from what people without paranormal abilities can do and further how he presents it is indistinguishable from my personal definition of moral fraud.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 04:07 PM   #253
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,763
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
The disparity between what people think can be done and what they can actually do (either as individuals or as a species) is, in my estimation, the core of magical art. With physical magic, sometimes our perception of form, space, and time are simply wrong. Magicians learn specific ways in which they're wrong, or can be fooled. They play on our spatial assumptions: I was fooled by Penn & Teller, in their presence, by being foolish enough to assume that if there was a screw head at the junction of two slats, there was a screw behind it that went all the way through.

---snip---
I am actually a very knowledgeable magician and mentalist, and I do not exaggerate when I say that my library of books and effects exceeds that of many professionals I know. I've also said that since I am both a poor performer myself and since I do not do this as a profession, I will never know enough to actually be considered expert. Were I in academia I'd say I had my PhD but had done no original research or publications.

I say that to sound less pretentious when I say the following, which I remind myself of when I am fooled by magicians and when someone asks me how something was done:

Don't ask how the magician did X. Ask how the magician appeared to do X.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 04:24 PM   #254
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,967
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
The point was that you can't decide that "you can't trust what is on TV" as an argument against Henry (who is on TV). Henry's show could be manipulated, but so could the news.
And that's wrong. Henry's show is not on the same level as cable news. It is entertainment, and not held to any standard beyond getting ratings.


Quote:
He was comparing (I assume) Henry to some FBI drama. My point, and maybe I need to type slower to be more clear, is that there are shows on TV that are trustworthy (CNBC) and some that are fraudulent (Fox News).
Technically neither CNBC or Fox News are entertainment. We're talking entertainment you claim is real.

Quote:
E! falls in the middle--they don't do aliens or bigfoot-
E! is short for Entertainment. They don't fall between CNBC and Fox News, they fall between Comedy Central and the Cartoon Network.

And they would do aliens and bigfoot in a heartbeat if one of the Kardashians decided they wanted to hunt for them.


Quote:
-and you can evaluate Henry or Sean Hannity on the merit, not on where it appears. Fox recently ran a story "Hunters Claim Bigfoot Sightings in Utah." They run a ton of UFO stories.
Again, you're not helping your case.

Quote:
Most of the cable shows that can't get on the major channels run Ghosts, Bigfoot, Aliens, Stichen, Atlantis all the time. Nat Geo channel did a story on flat earth that reached no conclusion, but presented their side. You can watch on YouTube.
They also run their own versions of hack psychics and medium shows too. How are they different?

Quote:
The argument that Henry isn't valid because he is on E! doesn't work for me.
I didn't say he was invalid because he's on E!, he's invalid because mediums are all fakes, and nobody can talk to spirits...so that's why he's invalid...
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 04:26 PM   #255
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,967
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
To be fair to Frank, I have actually used the word "fraud" in connection with Henry, but only in connection with Henry.

If I were being completely scientific, I would revise it to say that what Henry does is indistinguishable from what people without paranormal abilities can do and further how he presents it is indistinguishable from my personal definition of moral fraud.
THIS^
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 06:56 PM   #256
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,612
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
To be fair to Frank, I have actually used the word "fraud" in connection with Henry, but only in connection with Henry.

If I were being completely scientific, I would revise it to say that what Henry does is indistinguishable from what people without paranormal abilities can do and further how he presents it is indistinguishable from my personal definition of moral fraud.
That is completely rational. In contrast, I maintain a particular footing on this point because Frank has said that the fraud he thinks we are alleging is severe enough to release members of the production company from non-disclosure agreements, and further severe enough to compel at least one of them to come forward. He has insinuated that since none have, the fraud he says we allege does not exist. When I point out to him that only legally cognizable fraud will void an NDA, he retreats and says he's not talking about the legal definition of fraud. He wants to equivocate and use an informal, common-sensically moral definition of fraud, but he still thinks this is enough to make an NDA immaterial.

In a similar sense of fairness, I am entirely comfortable calling Henry a fraud, as long as it's understood that I'm not accusing him or his production company of perpetrating the tort of fraud as recognized by relevant legal jurisdictions. I'm also using "fraud" in the sense of personal moral standards. And that has bugger all to do with a non-disclosure agreement or the general conscionability of presenting fake necromancy as entertainment.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 07:32 PM   #257
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 20,471
I just can’t get past why he wouldn’t admit to being wrong and rather double down and lie about something as simple as the odds on the Super Bowl of this year, only a month ago. Anyone reading this can literally check for themselves in 30 seconds to see that it is a lie. There is a Latin phrase for how I treat the rest of what this poster says: Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 08:17 PM   #258
Frank McLaughlin
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
and further severe enough to compel at least one of them to come forward. He has insinuated that since none have, the fraud he says we allege does not exist.
No. The fraud could exist, and if it does, it will eventually come out. The guy is reading perhaps 25 people a week--most of whom are not signing NDA's--and if it is fraud as significant as you suggest, it will come out.

Anonymously if need be or with no regard for the NDA. Get caught leaking in the White House, and you face loss of security clearance and perhaps jail time---the information comes out regardless.

I can disclose improper information gathering at my firm, or my opinion of their business practices, and my NDA has no meaning. I can't release code or customer lists or a prop methodology. An NDA isn't stopping anyone, and that's assuming the celebrities sign. That hasn't been established.

>retreats and says he's not talking about the legal definition of fraud.

I have no idea there is a separate definition of fraud, and you say I "retreat" because I use a word as defined in a dictionary. Really, the level you go to to try and score a point.

>When I point out to him that only legally cognizable fraud will void an NDA

Once again you isolate and mis-state my arguments. First no one pays attention to an NDA if you are exposing something, happens all the time, and second, Henry's company isn't going to take anyone to court over an NDA because to do so would ruin Henry whether he is real or fake, and if he is fake, he'd be exposed all through Hollywood. Third, the people who have readings are gushing afterword so the NDA is meaningless. There is nothing to expose. Fourth, it is easy enough to leak information anonymously. There are Christian groups that would love to take Henry down. Fifth, an NDA keeps you from disclosing trade secrets, not your displeasure with the reading or your revelation that he did something inappropriate without your permission.

Stormy Daniels signed an NDA. Truth came out. Boy George was dissatisfied with his reading. Truth came out.

I think it is evident in Henry's manner, behavior and effect on other people that he is not engaged in fraud. Whether he is effective, we can debate. That he is sincere, and well-intentioned of that there is no doubt. I believe it to be self-evident.
__________________
Formerly known as member frank3373
Frank McLaughlin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 08:18 PM   #259
Frank McLaughlin
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
I just can’t get past why he wouldn’t admit to being wrong and rather double down and lie about something as simple as the odds on the Super Bowl of this year, only a month ago. Anyone reading this can literally check for themselves in 30 seconds to see that it is a lie. There is a Latin phrase for how I treat the rest of what this poster says: Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
The odds were 8.5, later became 8.0. I got in at 8.5. I lost $50.
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
__________________
Formerly known as member frank3373

Last edited by zooterkin; 14th March 2019 at 04:55 AM.
Frank McLaughlin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 08:36 PM   #260
Frank McLaughlin
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
And that's wrong. Henry's show is not on the same level as cable news. It is entertainment, and not held to any standard beyond getting ratings.
You are entitled to your opinion. I disagree.

Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Technically neither CNBC or Fox News are entertainment. We're talking entertainment you claim is real.
Or we are talking a serious show that you claim is entertainment.

Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
I didn't say he was invalid because he's on E!, he's invalid because mediums are all fakes, and nobody can talk to spirits...so that's why he's invalid
That is your limited experience. I get that. I trolled flat earth for a few months. It was fascinating to watch a person with no clue, so sure of themselves.
__________________
Formerly known as member frank3373
Frank McLaughlin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 08:38 PM   #261
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,508
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
Or we are talking a serious show that you claim is entertainment.
Entertainment and serious are not mutually exclusive. There are many serious shows that are nonetheless entertaining.

I think the defining criterion you should consider is this: If it's on TV, it's entertainment.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 09:27 PM   #262
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,612
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
The guy is reading perhaps 25 people a week--most of whom are not signing NDA's
But they are agreeing to the terms of service, which clearly label his service as entertainment. No cause of action there. Do you think the celebrity guests are under a different terms of service? If so, what evidence makes you think that?

Plus, this is just another straw man. You told us someone from the production -- who are under NDAs -- would spill the beans. There is, of course, the scenario in which the production crew goes to great lengths to make sure the celebrity guest is suitably fooled.

Quote:
...the information comes out regardless.
Presumes that anyone associated with the production is as morally outraged as you are. Do magician's assistants freak out when they realize they are not actually being sawn in half?

Quote:
I can disclose improper information gathering at my firm...
Probably not unless it's illegal. Again, the legal definition of things applies when it involves release from a contract. You don't get to break an NDA just because your personal moral beliefs are offended.

Quote:
...or my opinion of their business practices...
Only if you don't actually disclose what they are. If you say "I'm outraged by my company's business practices," you are legally okay, except that more and more companies are also requiring non-disparagement clauses. I don't tend to agree with that, but here we are. If you say, "My company does X, and I'm outraged by that," and X is not illegal, you may very well run afoul of a non-disclosure agreement.

Quote:
An NDA isn't stopping anyone, and that's assuming the celebrities sign. That hasn't been established.
I asked you several times what your experience was in the field of film and television production. Since you didn't answer, I can reasonably assume that you didn't in order to avoid the dilemma between having to give a truthful answer that undermines your argument, and telling a lie that you rightly feared might be exposed. Hence the reasonable conclusion -- borne out by considerable evidence in this thread -- is that you don't have the faintest clue what happens on a television set.

No one sets foot on a television set without signing some form of NDA.

Quote:
I have no idea there is a separate definition of fraud, and you say I "retreat" because I use a word as defined in a dictionary. Really, the level you go to to try and score a point.
The dictionary definition of fraud is not the legal definition. And the legal definition of fraud is the only one that matters in the context of determining the applicability of an NDA. As I pointed out, I gave a fairly thorough analysis of the legal aspects of fraud as they would apply to a mentalist's show. You didn't seem to have much to say about that, so I can assume you really don't care about the legal particulars. In any case, if you believe the dictionary definitions have legal effect, you're in for a rude awakening.

Quote:
Once again you isolate and mis-state my arguments. First no one pays attention to an NDA if you are exposing something...
The NDA is intended precisely to prevent you from exposing whatever it says not to disclose. That's exactly what the D in NDA means.

Quote:
...happens all the time
Cite a documented example.

Quote:
Henry's company isn't going to take anyone to court over an NDA because to do so would ruin Henry whether he is real or fake...
Enforcing an NDA is precisely intended to recover damages that arise from a secret being exposed. If someone goes public with what he has learned under NDA, and the other party suffers substantial damage because of it, they may sue for breach of NDA and recover suitable damage. The NDA creates a liability in exactly the situation you envision.

Quote:
Third, the people who have readings are gushing afterword so the NDA is meaningless.
What about the ones who don't gush, and who are prevented by an NDA from disparagement? And you never see them?

Quote:
Fourth, it is easy enough to leak information anonymously.
But not with effective credibility. If someone is not willing to associate his identity with the report, so as to authenticate the information, then Henry and his show can simply dismiss it as sour-grapes criticism and continue on as usual. As we have seen, the true believers won't care.

Further, it is not as easy as you think to leak confidential information. There are techniques, which I will not disclose, that allow me to trace the source of leaks in my company to the person who most likely leaked it. Those techniques are fully in place also in the entertainment industry.

Quote:
Fifth, an NDA keeps you from disclosing trade secrets, not your displeasure with the reading or your revelation that he did something inappropriate without your permission.
A non-disclosure agreement prevents you from disclosing whatever you agreed not to disclose, and may also include non-disparagement agreements. Celebrities generally appear for a fee. That fee is consideration for binding the celebrity to conform to desired behavior. You are mind-bogglingly naive about how these things work.

Quote:
I think it is evident in Henry's manner, behavior and effect on other people that he is not engaged in fraud. Whether he is effective, we can debate. That he is sincere, and well-intentioned of that there is no doubt. I believe it to be self-evident.
Begging the question, as usual. Not all fraudsters are the mustache-twirling straw men you demand.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 09:38 PM   #263
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,612
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
Stormy Daniels signed an NDA.
Stormy Daniels signed an NDA that required her to conceal knowledge of an illegal campaign finance violation. It was tried in court and rightly dismissed. She did not simply ignore the agreement; she had it annulled. And that is not a typical NDA and therefore a straw man. Ordinary NDAs are eminently enforceable.

Quote:
Boy George was dissatisfied with his reading.
Dissatisfaction is not the same as fraud.

Last edited by JayUtah; 11th March 2019 at 09:48 PM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 09:50 PM   #264
Frank McLaughlin
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
I am actually a very knowledgeable magician and mentalist, and I do not exaggerate when I say that my library of books and effects exceeds that of many professionals I know. I've also said that since I am both a poor performer myself and since I do not do this as a profession, I will never know enough to actually be considered expert. Were I in academia I'd say I had my PhD but had done no original research or publications.

I say that to sound less pretentious when I say the following, which I remind myself of when I am fooled by magicians and when someone asks me how something was done:

Don't ask how the magician did X. Ask how the magician appeared to do X.
I have stood in front of Doug Henning, Ricky Jay and that guy with the impossibly good magic show in Lahania, and I've had my mind blown by magic. I understand the difference, and I understand--say what you want, say Henry is a fraud--Henry is certainly no magician, and he certainly isn't doing a cold reading. That's obvious from the videos.

You don't find expert magicians at age 17 when Henry started or even at age 20. It takes years to master the craft.

If you are ever in Lahania, check out Warren and Annebelle's. I told Warren he was almost as good as Ricky Jay, and he went crazy, because he was much better. He then performed two tricks in front of me that were absolutely astonishing. I actually experienced shock. I said, "Okay, you are better than Ricky Jay."

The universe is filled with people who have special abilities, can do things others can't--not in defiance of the laws of physics, but using laws we don't know. How did the Egyptians move two 1000 ton stones, the Colossi of Memnon, 420 miles overland, people who did not have the wheel? Two pieces, each 60 feet tall. There is no American crane that can lift 1000 tons or even close. You certainly could not use ropes.
__________________
Formerly known as member frank3373
Frank McLaughlin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 09:55 PM   #265
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,612
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
It takes years to master the craft.
You seem so willing to make authoritative declarations about things you don't know anything about.

Quote:
The universe is filled with people who have special abilities, can do things others can't.
Yet you can't seem to extend this to people who might have mastered the well-known reading techniques at an uncommonly early age.

The rest of your straw men are disregarded.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 09:59 PM   #266
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,508
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
How did the Egyptians move two 1000 ton stones, the Colossi of Memnon, 420 miles overland, people who did not have the wheel? Two pieces, each 60 feet tall. There is no American crane that can lift 1000 tons or even close. You certainly could not use ropes.
Wet sand.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 01:07 AM   #267
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 11,146
Here are the hits Derren Brown got in the first of the three short readings he did in the demonstration of cold reading which Frank McLaughlin has described as "comically bad":

The deceased is a young man to whom the subject was very close
He died on their anniversary
They parted before he passed on
He was reserved but good natured with a dimply face
He had issues with her ex-husband Charles
She's lonely and has a silly pet

The subject was extremely impressed, remarking that Brown knew specific things he couldn't have known about the one who passed away.

The other two subjects were equally impressed with their readings. All three would have gone away without complaint, let alone making accusations of fraud, if Brown had kept up his pretense of being a genuine medium.

Note these were ordinary New Yorkers who had responded to an ad offering readings. They were not celebrities, and Brown had no team of researchers digging into their past before he met them, so this was pure cold reading.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 04:06 AM   #268
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,608
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
There is no American crane that can lift 1000 tons or even close. You certainly could not use ropes.
How disappointing for you, I used to work for a crane company in the UK and nearly two decades ago we had several 'thousand tonners'. The largest crane in the UK at the moment is the SGC 250 with a maximum capacity of 3,000 tonnes.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills

Last edited by P.J. Denyer; 12th March 2019 at 04:12 AM. Reason: Edited for clarity
P.J. Denyer is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 04:48 AM   #269
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 11,146
Of all the ways people manage to convince themselves of nonsense the "I can't explain this therefore nobody can" reasoning is the most ignorant and the most arrogant. "I can't explain how the pyramids were built therefore it must have been a civilisation greater than ours". "I can't explain what I saw in the sky therefore it must have been an alien spaceship". I can't explain how a medium gave a convincing reading therefore he must have been talking to the dead". The idea that there might be plenty of people who know more than they do and can explain all these things without resorting to woo is angrily rejected when suggested. Truly this is the age of the know nothing know it all, when the wilfully ignorant expect their uninformed opinions to be given the same consideration as those of experts who have spent decades studying their subjects.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 05:26 AM   #270
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,763
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
I have stood in front of Doug Henning, Ricky Jay and that guy with the impossibly good magic show in Lahania, and I've had my mind blown by magic.
Wonderful. How do you differentiate your reaction from the non-musicians who had their mind blown by your minimally talented friend? Is it simply that you are special and cannot possibly be taken in by a fraudster?


Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin
I understand the difference,
The difference between what? You responded to my post in which the only possible thing you refer to is the question to ask when trying to determine magical methods. Perhaps you mean the difference between the seemingly supernatural and the actually supernatural. If you understand that difference then I ask again how you do it. So far, as with every person of your ilk who comes here to educate us, it has boiled down to the fact that you can't figure it out therefore it's real. But even that's not true because that's only how it starts. It morphs, without being acknowledged as having done so, into ignoring the explanations so you can insist it's real anyway and not have to admit you were fooled.


Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin
and I understand--say what you want, say Henry is a fraud--Henry is certainly no magician,
In the strictest sense you are correct; he is a mentalist in the professional parlance. I was using the more common term even though incorrect. I'm happy to change it. What he also certainly is not is a medium, if the intent is to indicate he actually communicates with the dead.

Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin
and he certainly isn't doing a cold reading. That's obvious from the videos.
He is doing both hot and cold reading which I demonstrated and which you refuse to address. The refusal is its own admission that you have no case.


Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin
You don't find expert magicians at age 17 when Henry started or even at age 20. It takes years to master the craft.
First, Henry isn't an expert. He's a confident charlatan who has adopted the same methods as others and employed them at a just-good-enough level because that's all it takes. Again, you proved the point with your musical anecdote.

Second, what a ridiculous claim, disproven by your own examples. When did Ricky Jay become the youngest magician on television? How old was Colin Keys when he nearly won America's Got Talent? (For the record, Ricky Jay was not expert when he first appeared on television, but he was good enough to fool savvy adults. And Colin Keys is no expert, either, but he is better in his field than Henry is in his).

Third, you have demonstrated that you lack the qualifications to determine someone's expertise in either magic or mentalism.

Fourth, there is a difference between being an expert in a profession and being successful on television.


Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin
If you are ever in Lahania, check out Warren and Annebelle's. I told Warren he was almost as good as Ricky Jay, and he went crazy, because he was much better. He then performed two tricks in front of me that were absolutely astonishing. I actually experienced shock. I said, "Okay, you are better than Ricky Jay."
Again, you do not have the qualifications to make that judgment, regardless that you have "stood in front of" Ricky Jay. Would you like the list of great magicians in front of whom I have stood? Shaken hands? Spoken with? Asked advice from? It doesn't qualify me to say Lance Burton has better skills than David Copperfield, regardless how large my ego is.


Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin
The universe is filled with people who have special abilities, can do things others can't--not in defiance of the laws of physics, but using laws we don't know.
The earth is filled with people, not the universe.

Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin
How did the Egyptians move two 1000 ton stones, the Colossi of Memnon, 420 miles overland, people who did not have the wheel? Two pieces, each 60 feet tall. There is no American crane that can lift 1000 tons or even close. You certainly could not use ropes.
All of which is entirely irrelevant and is the last refuge of the defeated argument: "You can't explain X therefore Y is supernatural!" Never mind that we can actually explain X.

I know nothing of Memnon and will not follow you down that rabbit hole, but my father -- while never a crane operator himself -- has quite a bit of experience working with them, so I'll add to what has already been said in disproving your claim. These cranes are in Texas. The larger one can lift 3,500 tons at max capacity. Not that cranes would be needed for moving any large item in ancient times. I don't know about Memnon, but I know enough of the pyramids to know how such things can be done.


I may be done with this thread, though I won't promise. The topic interests me, and I'm a sucker for chiming in when bored, but I will say that I know that the only things left to learn here will be from people who are not you.

Despite how high a regard in which you hold your own abilities, you have demonstrated the very pedestrian nature and limitations of nearly every supernatural supporter I have met here and in real life. You refuse to get specific; you demand of others what you will not do yourself; you expect us to make your case for you; you claim an expertise that you demonstrably do not possess; you refuse to acknowledge any error; and there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in your argument that is remotely new or convincing.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 05:28 AM   #271
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,763
Forgot to add: Warren may well be better than Ricky Jay, I don't know. I doubt it, but it's possible. Ricky himself will admit to knowing people better than he is, and the two most prominent are amateurs who have never performed for money in their lives. But I doubt it for at least a couple of reasons. First, your incredible lack of qualifications to make the judgment. Two, despite it being possible, it's highly unlikely.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 05:32 AM   #272
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,763
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Of all the ways people manage to convince themselves of nonsense the "I can't explain this therefore nobody can" reasoning is the most ignorant and the most arrogant. "I can't explain how the pyramids were built therefore it must have been a civilisation greater than ours". "I can't explain what I saw in the sky therefore it must have been an alien spaceship". I can't explain how a medium gave a convincing reading therefore he must have been talking to the dead". The idea that there might be plenty of people who know more than they do and can explain all these things without resorting to woo is angrily rejected when suggested. Truly this is the age of the know nothing know it all, when the wilfully ignorant expect their uninformed opinions to be given the same consideration as those of experts who have spent decades studying their subjects.
Exactly. I would emphasize the willfully ignorant part because, as we have seen with Frank here, they actually can explain it; they are given explanations and dismiss them rather than admit they might have been fooled. I would also add the arrogance of claiming an inability to be fooled. I can't remember his name now, but there is one famous paranormal proponent (not practitioner) who said outright what many people here have implied: "I know all about confirmation bias and cold readings and the like, therefore they can't fool me, and I don't have to control for them." That's a paraphrase, of course, but it's the position held.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 06:36 AM   #273
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,247
Frank McLaughlin - can you explain using one of the clips what you find so compelling?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 06:47 AM   #274
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,763
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Frank McLaughlin - can you explain using one of the clips what you find so compelling?
Good luck. Perhaps he will respond to this request from you when he has refused to do so from others, especially me. He sort of hung his hat on the Macklemore video but backed away -- as I predicted -- when shown it wasn't as impressive as he thought. Now he says it doesn't hang on just one video but on the totality. Of course, he won't explain anything about that, either.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 06:52 AM   #275
kali1137
Muse
 
kali1137's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Purgatory, PA
Posts: 953
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Of all the ways people manage to convince themselves of nonsense the "I can't explain this therefore nobody can" reasoning is the most ignorant and the most arrogant. "I can't explain how the pyramids were built therefore it must have been a civilisation greater than ours". "I can't explain what I saw in the sky therefore it must have been an alien spaceship". I can't explain how a medium gave a convincing reading therefore he must have been talking to the dead". The idea that there might be plenty of people who know more than they do and can explain all these things without resorting to woo is angrily rejected when suggested. Truly this is the age of the know nothing know it all, when the wilfully ignorant expect their uninformed opinions to be given the same consideration as those of experts who have spent decades studying their subjects.
Exactly this! I dropped out of active participation because there is no reason to give logical explanations to someone who will refuse to accept any of them. Already professed belief in reincarnation, heaven, ect… there are simply too many woo hurdles to overcome for one thread. However, I do want thank all of you who still have the patience to try because I am learning a lot.
kali1137 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 07:02 AM   #276
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,612
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
Not that cranes would be needed for moving any large item in ancient times. I don't know about Memnon, but I know enough of the pyramids to know how such things can be done.
Frank's straw man suggests that the Egyptians would have contemplated moving and placing a thousand-ton object as a lift. And he suggests that a similar operation also would be contemplated as an overhead lift. The no-crane argument is a red herring. NASA's crawler-transporter can move 8,000 tons, and -- with the aid of a ramp and some impressive hydraulics -- lift its load to the top of the elevated pads at Launch Complex 39.

And this typifies all his dismissals of alternate explanations: "It can't have been done this one particular common way, therefore it must be supernatural."

And it's valid to say that the Egyptians didn't have hydraulics or Diesel-electric motors either. But the point is not the progression of harnessing power over time. The point is the qualitative shift of genres of machinery. Okay, so the method of heavy overhead lifts was not available to the Egyptians. What was? Balance-beams? Ramps? Blocks and tackle? Sheesh, I've moved 500-lb pianos by myself using what amounts to a couple of roller skates.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 07:06 AM   #277
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,763
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
---snip---

If you are ever in Lahania, check out Warren and Annebelle's. I told Warren he was almost as good as Ricky Jay, and he went crazy, because he was much better. He then performed two tricks in front of me that were absolutely astonishing. I actually experienced shock. I said, "Okay, you are better than Ricky Jay."
---snip---
While it is only germane in a sub-specialty sort of sense, I feel a need to add this to my earlier comments on why I do not accept your judgment that Warren is better than Ricky Jay, aside from the facts that you aren't qualified to make such a judgment and you saw each once.

You haven't defined "better." Lest you think I'm nitpicking, I suggest you do a bit of research on what Ricky Jay would consider better and then also ask Warren what he considers better. I've repeatedly said I'm not a good magician or mentalist, and I'm not, but I'm a lot better than some magicians I know who make money at it, even some of them whose technical skill is far beyond what mine will ever be.

Is David Blaine better than Jeff McBride? From a technical standpoint, especially with cards, Blaine isn't even in the same league as McBride but Blaine brings the sort of wonder that Ricky Jay admired. If Tyler Henry has a skill it is the same skill that Blaine has but which Henry uses to exploit his subjects: he knows how to tap into their feelings.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 07:07 AM   #278
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,763
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Frank's straw man suggests that the Egyptians would have contemplated moving and placing a thousand-ton object as a lift. And he suggests that a similar operation also would be contemplated as an overhead lift. The no-crane argument is a red herring. NASA's crawler-transporter can move 8,000 tons, and -- with the aid of a ramp and some impressive hydraulics -- lift its load to the top of the elevated pads at Launch Complex 39.

And this typifies all his dismissals of alternate explanations: "It can't have been done this one particular common way, therefore it must be supernatural."

And it's valid to say that the Egyptians didn't have hydraulics or Diesel-electric motors either. But the point is not the progression of harnessing power over time. The point is the qualitative shift of genres of machinery. Okay, so the method of heavy overhead lifts was not available to the Egyptians. What was? Balance-beams? Ramps? Blocks and tackle? Sheesh, I've moved 500-lb pianos by myself using what amounts to a couple of roller skates.
But you got the roller skates from aliens, right?
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 07:41 AM   #279
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 20,471
Originally Posted by kali1137 View Post
Exactly this! I dropped out of active participation because there is no reason to give logical explanations to someone who will refuse to accept any of them. Already professed belief in reincarnation, heaven, etc… there are simply too many woo hurdles to overcome for one thread. However, I do want thank all of you who still have the patience to try because I am learning a lot.
Same. Plus he's a proven liar about the Super Bowl, of all the weird random things. The inability to admit even one simple error means that there is likely no hope here.

I so resent people that have arguments from incredulity about the pyramids or Stonehenge or whatever. It's such arrogance, that our ignorant forebears couldn't have achieved something great with primitive technology.

Best of luck, Garrette.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 07:50 AM   #280
8enotto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 1,054
Frank, this is a serious question. I am not picking on you I just want to understand your ideas.


What would it take to shake your beliefs to the roots? What errors could a medium make to cause doubts?
8enotto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:18 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.