CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-09-2013, 06:19 PM
CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
Hello guys. I promised to myself to do this. I have gathered evidence in favor of existence of subtle world.
I want to send it to CSICOP for examination. As I understand it, they are like volunteering skeptics, but more equipped to handle complex claims. My intention is to formulate the open letter and change it if you have any suggestions. Then I send it to the skeptics and also publish their response, of which they will be informed. I want to know that their fellow skeptics are watching. I want this handled professionally and to avoid personal emotional reactions, such as "not this shit again".

Unless you suggest otherwise, I will send the e-mail to
Benjamin Radford, Managing Editor - Skeptical Inquirer

Please give suggestions as to the form and content in the letter. If you want me to formulate this in any more sensible or rational way, please point out which. Or tell me it is good as it is and I'll send it.

Dear CSICOP editors,

I am an amateur enthusiast in fringe science.

My motivation is personal, but not belief-based. I am physically, through my senses, aware of the "energies", "meridians", "chakras" and my "aura". I had such sensations as a small child, sooner than I had any idea as for what they are or why they are not normal. As an owner of such sensations, I am obliged to search for what they are and so far the only source providing any information to the point were the more occult, esoteric sources. And some fringe science research. I selected this research because it matches my empirical observations of the anomalous sensations. But even if you do not accept this research, my sensations will probably continue as they did so far under all conditions for more than 20 years. So I am not desperate for validation from you, or from anyone else. I only want to do the duty I have to my skeptical friends, to honesty and to science.

There is however a concern I have, a suspicion that the academic and respected journal sphere has built around itself a wall of prejudice and gives more recognition to skeptics. Skeptics who do not study the arguments of the other side and do not bring a positive, constructive information on the other side. This is important, because most supernatural claimants do not know how does their claim work either, in scientific terms. From this ignorance on both sides it is usually impossible do agree on a working experimental demonstration. Further source of my concern is the history of skeptical stance towards Wilhelm Reich, well-documented on this website. To be treated this way is on par in harmfulness with any quack treatment I can think of.
http://orgonelab.org/skeptics.htm

Therefore, I shall publish this letter on a forum of Atheists and Skeptics - and your reply as well. You were presented as their higher instance to handle extraordinary claims and I hope we all expect us to act professionally. If you do not agree with publishing this open letter, please state so, but please provide some evidence that I really did contact you and did submit my pet theories to examination.
This open letter will be a basis of a forum thread, where my suggestions and your examinations will be discussed. This is why I expect to hear updates of your investigations, if there are any. I will promptly post them in this particular topic.

Please note, that much of the claims concerns a laboratory in Oregon (see further) and it might be wise to send a copy to a CSICOP fellow in Oregon.

So let's begin.
The proposal says, that there is a subtle world, consisting of matter/energy of such an unusual configuration that it interacts only weakly, but it is a basis of life and consciousness, even participates on many natural and physical phenomena.
It was given many names during history, by individuals trained and sensitive enough to perceive it, or equipped with the right technology. Chi, prana, aether, orgone.

I propose this charged, energetic substance belongs to the broad cathegory of weakly interacting matter, called "dark matter". However, it does react through
- electro-static charge
- electric force
- electro-magnetic force
- presence of layered materials with capacitor-like properties
- presence of water or metallic surface and moving water, etc.

However, it is NOT a static charge or any other commonly known kind of energy. I can only speculate that it is some kind or sum of supersymmetric particles or dark matter.

If we project an electric field of a given intensity, then this field is dampened by proximity of vital objects and the intensity decreases. Vitality of this object is then in inverse proportion to the field's intensity.
This decrease does not respond to conventional electrically charged objects.

This effect was first discovered by Wilhelm Reich and further studied by professor James DeMeo.
http://www.orgonelab.org/cart/ylemeter.htm

The theory currently says, that this mysterious medium is plasma of some kind, electrically charged, present in atmosphere, Sun, solar system. Its atomic or particle nature is unknown, yet. Because it is electrically charged, it reacts to highly structured matter, with many layers of various conductivity, it reacts to capacitors. (and living matter with a plenty of cellular walls) The basic experiment set up involves building a big room with walls of metal and plastic or paper layers, which is, essentially, a capacitor. However, this mysterious plasma does not charge the capacitor, it gets caught inside the room. Which suggests the capacitor walls do have some innate charge that is inimical to this plasma - perhaps counteracting its own electric charge, thus slowing it down when it blows in like solar wind, and slowing it down even more when it wants to fly out, thus creating a local concentration of this unidentified plasma. A higher local concentration allows for experimental demonstrations.

This concentration does alter physical parameters of living things, water, metals, and measuring instruments. Most notably, it altered the function of a standard neutron detector, which has an isolated chamber similar to the capacitor room. It made it react strongly to these things:

Passive neutron counts like reactor values.
http://www.orgonelab.org/Report2003.htm

Which would in my layman mind suggest that this plasma is atomic in nature and does contain neutrons, or perhaps neutrons hold it in the atomic core of common matter, without our knowledge. The latter would correlate with some other research. It is interesting to compare a typical blue glow of this plasma with the notion of Cherenkov radiation. It anyway goes badly for the safety of nuclear technology and may lead to some changes or additions in particle theory.

Anomalous readings on the charged neutron counter, reacting highly to people, other concentration of plasma, thunderstorms and so on.
http://www.orgonelab.org/Report2006.htm

Neutron counter and sunspots correlation
http://www.orgonelab.org/OBRLNewsletter/...er2011.pdf

In author's own words, "There are plenty of peer-reviewed papers. Most all of the orgonomic journals, including Reich's original ones, were peer-reviewed. See the on-line Bibliography on Orgonomy, and my own publications list for details:"
http://www.orgonelab.org/bibliog.htm
http://www.orgonelab.org/demeopubs.htm

You will find it all here, all sorts of gathered evidence in favor of this theory.
http://www.waterjournal.org/uploads/vol3...-DeMeo.pdf
You can find more evidence which JDM or WR did not know about, at http://www.miroslavprovod.com

The observed Reich's and DeMeo's phenomenon has
- electric, or electro-static properties and behavior corresponding to plasma dynamics. (see
http://www.miroslavprovod.com/ )
I don't believe it is purely electro-static, there seems to be a new order of matter involved, but I would go as far as claiming that it is impossible to understand fully the physics of electrostatic charge without knowing the role of this plasmatic matter.

- deep affinity with living organisms, (due to mentioned reasons) and with some natural structures, like river meanders, underground water streams, atmosphere, weather and so on, obviously because of their isolative, capacitive and perhaps even indirectly inductive properties, that induce more electric charge with ambient magnetic fields.

- potentially great historical, cultural and religious implications.

http://www.darkplasmatheory.blogspot.cz/
Jay Alfred's Dark Plasma Theory is a comprehensive cross-checking and comparison of all subtle-material, plasmatic phenomena in nature, human body and culture. He makes the image stand out, how the supposedly supernatural claims of history are easily explainable in terms of plasma dynamics. His website needs to be compared to a video of plasma dynamics in practice, in this Italian device, which one of attempts at cold fusion through focusing plasma in a way that resembles chakras both in appearance and function. Keep always in mind, that the two lateral chakra vortexes seen on Alfred's website are attempts at establishing a several full torus fields around a lateral axis, and one greater field of the vertical axis. The lateral vortexes are merely a pre-mature stage.
Here is the plasma focusing device, an "artificial chakra", so to speak.
http://youtu.be/yhKB-VxJWpg?t=10m57s

Furthermore, the evidence above is supported by the work of doctor Harry Oldfield (http://www.electrocrystal.com) and Konstantin Korotkov. Both have independently developed aura imaging technologies that are testable and practically applicable. I would have you examine their research in the light of other research already mentioned.
Some suggestions:
http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/aug3/korotkov.htm
http://www.esotericonline.net/m/blogpost...t%3A424024

Korotkov developed an extremely advanced form of Kirlian photography. Far from being a mere coronal discharge, this photography excites the "subtle fields" into a visible, measurable phenomenon.
http://korotkov.org/


The story of Wilhelm Reich is also described in the materials. Considering how controversial it is, you should have your hands full examining DeMeo's critical response to the skeptics, if you want to go that way. You might want to address the poor CSICOP review of Reich's and JDM's work by Martin Gardner, who relied solely on deliberate slander and misinformation spread by Joel Carlinsky and presented him as a credible source.
http://www.orgonelab.org/carlinsky.htm
If you want to go down that road, the road of personal histories, you need to address this first. I would of course rather have you examine the actual science. This is what I am curious about.

No-one of course wants to perpetuate numerous misconceptions and nonsense about Reich's research so popular among New Age community and conspiracy theorists. JDM denies it all. ( http://www.orgonelab.org/orgonenonsense.htm )
I do not agree with all JDM's opinions and theories and I don't need to. I merely want you to examine those that I have a personal experience with and those that demonstrate physical, easily measurable interactions with common equipment and materials.

This is nearly all that I could find of physical evidence to support and explain my sensory observations. I would like you to read through the provided materials and websites and compare the information to each other and to someone's expertise in physics. I believe you will see a common pattern, a set of various research independently describing the same family of phenomena, all measurable and repeatable in many various ways. Perhaps this variety together with deep cultural controversy surrounding this topic is the reason why this field has gone unnoticed.
If you arrive at different conclusions, please explain them as well. If I am right and these phenomena are real, there will be still more and more research on them and sooner or later it will have to be addressed properly by skeptical organizations. Remebmer, every such research spawns a great following among New Age people and turns them away from journals towards "dissident science". I see a chance here to bridge the gap between "dissident science" and the world of peer-reviewed prestigious journals. These are potentially world-changing discoveries and I hope you will give them due consideration.

Please confirm that the e-mail has been received and who it has been forwarded to, alternatively, if an examination is underway.

Kind regards,

***********

However, before I send it, I have my doubts. I have just found this article and other articles in it, doubting the objectivity of CSICOP and some others.
http://www.orgonelab.org/csicop.htm

Apparently, CSICOP has acted against JDM in a biased manner before.
http://www.orgonelab.org/carlinsky.htm

If you think the accusations are crap, this one is not.
http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnl...erview.htm

ABSTRACT: The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) has become the most publicly visible institution engaged in the debate on the paranormal. Initially CSICOP was primarily a scholarly body, but soon after its beginning it adopted a popular approach that fostered a more broadly based social movement. It actively promoted the formation of local societies with similar aims. Both CSICOP and the local groups have some distinguishing features. Prestigious scholars are affiliated with these organizations, a disproportionate number of magicians are involved, the groups are dominated by men, and many members hold religious views that are antagonistic to the paranormal. Despite the name of the organization, actual research is a very low priority of the Committee. In fact, CSICOP instituted a policy against doing research itself. CSICOP’s highest priority has been to influence the media. Its rhetoric and activities are designed to appeal to a broad audience rather than to scientists who investigate unusual or controversial phenomena. Recently, the Committee broadened its focus to include areas outside the paranormal.

Even if you are not sure, do you think it might be wiser to skip CSICOP and find some other investigative journal? (any suggestions? Do you think anyone in PLOS Biology would read this?)
Alternatively, what do you think of the evidence against CSICOP? Should I still send the letter to CSICOP, but refraining from any controversial hints, hoping to slip under the radar? Do you think the open letter policy is sufficient to stop any foul play on the part of the journal?


I smell some dirty politics here. Rembember, my government is 100% illegitimate and based on such corruption and secret pacts. This year I have seen
- deliberate presidential amnesty of the worst imaginable, large-scale industrial bandits who impoverished whole towns (even those on the run returned just a few days before the amnesty, to be included in it)
- Constitutional Court agreement with this mockery of law
- sabotage of the new presidential elections by withholding a candidate's vote sheets
- hundreds of billions worth theft of taxpayer money on overpriced solar energy deals
- hundreds of billions worth theft of state property by the churches in so-called "Church restitutions"
- a private state military service controlled by a Prime Minister's lover. And that's only some of what happened this year. It was much like that here all the years before.
- and of course Barrack Hussein Obama, who wiretapped the whole world, can kill anyone in the world just by pressing a button, who read millions of iPhone users fingerprints and who freakin' tapped the Atlantic internet cable to track all the traffic between USA and Europe. If you still think conspiracies are improbable, you must be daft.

So my tolerance for bullshit is very low. If you tell me I'm paranoid, I'll give you the finger and it won't be this one Thumbsup Dodgy

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2013, 06:44 PM
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
Good luck!

KC IS A LIAR!!!! HE PROMISED ME VANILLA CAKES AND GAVE ME STRAWBERRY CAKE Weeping
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2013, 07:06 PM
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
... remember when I said that papers marked "it's a conspiracy" will not be graded?

Yeah. This will not be graded.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2013, 07:09 PM
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
Well, there's no rule saying atheists can't be crazy.

If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying.

[Image: ZcC2kGl.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2013, 07:19 PM
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
(23-09-2013 06:19 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Hello guys. I promised to myself to do this. I have gathered evidence in favor of existence of subtle world.
I want to send it to CSICOP for examination. As I understand it, they are like volunteering skeptics, but more equipped to handle complex claims. My intention is to formulate the open letter and change it if you have any suggestions. Then I send it to the skeptics and also publish their response, of which they will be informed. I want to know that their fellow skeptics are watching. I want this handled professionally and to avoid personal emotional reactions, such as "not this shit again".

Unless you suggest otherwise, I will send the e-mail to
Benjamin Radford, Managing Editor - Skeptical Inquirer

Please give suggestions as to the form and content in the letter. If you want me to formulate this in any more sensible or rational way, please point out which. Or tell me it is good as it is and I'll send it.

Dear CSICOP editors,

I am an amateur enthusiast in fringe science.

My motivation is personal, but not belief-based. I am physically, through my senses, aware of the "energies", "meridians", "chakras" and my "aura". I had such sensations as a small child, sooner than I had any idea as for what they are or why they are not normal. As an owner of such sensations, I am obliged to search for what they are and so far the only source providing any information to the point were the more occult, esoteric sources. And some fringe science research. I selected this research because it matches my empirical observations of the anomalous sensations. But even if you do not accept this research, my sensations will probably continue as they did so far under all conditions for more than 20 years. So I am not desperate for validation from you, or from anyone else. I only want to do the duty I have to my skeptical friends, to honesty and to science.

There is however a concern I have, a suspicion that the academic and respected journal sphere has built around itself a wall of prejudice and gives more recognition to skeptics. Skeptics who do not study the arguments of the other side and do not bring a positive, constructive information on the other side. This is important, because most supernatural claimants do not know how does their claim work either, in scientific terms. From this ignorance on both sides it is usually impossible do agree on a working experimental demonstration. Further source of my concern is the history of skeptical stance towards Wilhelm Reich, well-documented on this website. To be treated this way is on par in harmfulness with any quack treatment I can think of.
http://orgonelab.org/skeptics.htm

Therefore, I shall publish this letter on a forum of Atheists and Skeptics - and your reply as well. You were presented as their higher instance to handle extraordinary claims and I hope we all expect us to act professionally. If you do not agree with publishing this open letter, please state so, but please provide some evidence that I really did contact you and did submit my pet theories to examination.
This open letter will be a basis of a forum thread, where my suggestions and your examinations will be discussed. This is why I expect to hear updates of your investigations, if there are any. I will promptly post them in this particular topic.

Please note, that much of the claims concerns a laboratory in Oregon (see further) and it might be wise to send a copy to a CSICOP fellow in Oregon.

So let's begin.
The proposal says, that there is a subtle world, consisting of matter/energy of such an unusual configuration that it interacts only weakly, but it is a basis of life and consciousness, even participates on many natural and physical phenomena.
It was given many names during history, by individuals trained and sensitive enough to perceive it, or equipped with the right technology. Chi, prana, aether, orgone.

I propose this charged, energetic substance belongs to the broad cathegory of weakly interacting matter, called "dark matter". However, it does react through
- electro-static charge
- electric force
- electro-magnetic force
- presence of layered materials with capacitor-like properties
- presence of water or metallic surface and moving water, etc.

However, it is NOT a static charge or any other commonly known kind of energy. I can only speculate that it is some kind or sum of supersymmetric particles or dark matter.

If we project an electric field of a given intensity, then this field is dampened by proximity of vital objects and the intensity decreases. Vitality of this object is then in inverse proportion to the field's intensity.
This decrease does not respond to conventional electrically charged objects.

This effect was first discovered by Wilhelm Reich and further studied by professor James DeMeo.
http://www.orgonelab.org/cart/ylemeter.htm

The theory currently says, that this mysterious medium is plasma of some kind, electrically charged, present in atmosphere, Sun, solar system. Its atomic or particle nature is unknown, yet. Because it is electrically charged, it reacts to highly structured matter, with many layers of various conductivity, it reacts to capacitors. (and living matter with a plenty of cellular walls) The basic experiment set up involves building a big room with walls of metal and plastic or paper layers, which is, essentially, a capacitor. However, this mysterious plasma does not charge the capacitor, it gets caught inside the room. Which suggests the capacitor walls do have some innate charge that is inimical to this plasma - perhaps counteracting its own electric charge, thus slowing it down when it blows in like solar wind, and slowing it down even more when it wants to fly out, thus creating a local concentration of this unidentified plasma. A higher local concentration allows for experimental demonstrations.

This concentration does alter physical parameters of living things, water, metals, and measuring instruments. Most notably, it altered the function of a standard neutron detector, which has an isolated chamber similar to the capacitor room. It made it react strongly to these things:

Passive neutron counts like reactor values.
http://www.orgonelab.org/Report2003.htm

Which would in my layman mind suggest that this plasma is atomic in nature and does contain neutrons, or perhaps neutrons hold it in the atomic core of common matter, without our knowledge. The latter would correlate with some other research. It is interesting to compare a typical blue glow of this plasma with the notion of Cherenkov radiation. It anyway goes badly for the safety of nuclear technology and may lead to some changes or additions in particle theory.

Anomalous readings on the charged neutron counter, reacting highly to people, other concentration of plasma, thunderstorms and so on.
http://www.orgonelab.org/Report2006.htm

Neutron counter and sunspots correlation
http://www.orgonelab.org/OBRLNewsletter/...er2011.pdf

In author's own words, "There are plenty of peer-reviewed papers. Most all of the orgonomic journals, including Reich's original ones, were peer-reviewed. See the on-line Bibliography on Orgonomy, and my own publications list for details:"
http://www.orgonelab.org/bibliog.htm
http://www.orgonelab.org/demeopubs.htm

You will find it all here, all sorts of gathered evidence in favor of this theory.
http://www.waterjournal.org/uploads/vol3...-DeMeo.pdf
You can find more evidence which JDM or WR did not know about, at http://www.miroslavprovod.com

The observed Reich's and DeMeo's phenomenon has
- electric, or electro-static properties and behavior corresponding to plasma dynamics. (see
http://www.miroslavprovod.com/ )
I don't believe it is purely electro-static, there seems to be a new order of matter involved, but I would go as far as claiming that it is impossible to understand fully the physics of electrostatic charge without knowing the role of this plasmatic matter.

- deep affinity with living organisms, (due to mentioned reasons) and with some natural structures, like river meanders, underground water streams, atmosphere, weather and so on, obviously because of their isolative, capacitive and perhaps even indirectly inductive properties, that induce more electric charge with ambient magnetic fields.

- potentially great historical, cultural and religious implications.

http://www.darkplasmatheory.blogspot.cz/
Jay Alfred's Dark Plasma Theory is a comprehensive cross-checking and comparison of all subtle-material, plasmatic phenomena in nature, human body and culture. He makes the image stand out, how the supposedly supernatural claims of history are easily explainable in terms of plasma dynamics. His website needs to be compared to a video of plasma dynamics in practice, in this Italian device, which one of attempts at cold fusion through focusing plasma in a way that resembles chakras both in appearance and function. Keep always in mind, that the two lateral chakra vortexes seen on Alfred's website are attempts at establishing a several full torus fields around a lateral axis, and one greater field of the vertical axis. The lateral vortexes are merely a pre-mature stage.
Here is the plasma focusing device, an "artificial chakra", so to speak.
http://youtu.be/yhKB-VxJWpg?t=10m57s

Furthermore, the evidence above is supported by the work of doctor Harry Oldfield (http://www.electrocrystal.com) and Konstantin Korotkov. Both have independently developed aura imaging technologies that are testable and practically applicable. I would have you examine their research in the light of other research already mentioned.
Some suggestions:
http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/aug3/korotkov.htm
http://www.esotericonline.net/m/blogpost...t%3A424024

Korotkov developed an extremely advanced form of Kirlian photography. Far from being a mere coronal discharge, this photography excites the "subtle fields" into a visible, measurable phenomenon.
http://korotkov.org/


The story of Wilhelm Reich is also described in the materials. Considering how controversial it is, you should have your hands full examining DeMeo's critical response to the skeptics, if you want to go that way. You might want to address the poor CSICOP review of Reich's and JDM's work by Martin Gardner, who relied solely on deliberate slander and misinformation spread by Joel Carlinsky and presented him as a credible source.
http://www.orgonelab.org/carlinsky.htm
If you want to go down that road, the road of personal histories, you need to address this first. I would of course rather have you examine the actual science. This is what I am curious about.

No-one of course wants to perpetuate numerous misconceptions and nonsense about Reich's research so popular among New Age community and conspiracy theorists. JDM denies it all. ( http://www.orgonelab.org/orgonenonsense.htm )
I do not agree with all JDM's opinions and theories and I don't need to. I merely want you to examine those that I have a personal experience with and those that demonstrate physical, easily measurable interactions with common equipment and materials.

This is nearly all that I could find of physical evidence to support and explain my sensory observations. I would like you to read through the provided materials and websites and compare the information to each other and to someone's expertise in physics. I believe you will see a common pattern, a set of various research independently describing the same family of phenomena, all measurable and repeatable in many various ways. Perhaps this variety together with deep cultural controversy surrounding this topic is the reason why this field has gone unnoticed.
If you arrive at different conclusions, please explain them as well. If I am right and these phenomena are real, there will be still more and more research on them and sooner or later it will have to be addressed properly by skeptical organizations. Remebmer, every such research spawns a great following among New Age people and turns them away from journals towards "dissident science". I see a chance here to bridge the gap between "dissident science" and the world of peer-reviewed prestigious journals. These are potentially world-changing discoveries and I hope you will give them due consideration.

Please confirm that the e-mail has been received and who it has been forwarded to, alternatively, if an examination is underway.

Kind regards,

***********

However, before I send it, I have my doubts. I have just found this article and other articles in it, doubting the objectivity of CSICOP and some others.
http://www.orgonelab.org/csicop.htm

Apparently, CSICOP has acted against JDM in a biased manner before.
http://www.orgonelab.org/carlinsky.htm

If you think the accusations are crap, this one is not.
http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnl...erview.htm

ABSTRACT: The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) has become the most publicly visible institution engaged in the debate on the paranormal. Initially CSICOP was primarily a scholarly body, but soon after its beginning it adopted a popular approach that fostered a more broadly based social movement. It actively promoted the formation of local societies with similar aims. Both CSICOP and the local groups have some distinguishing features. Prestigious scholars are affiliated with these organizations, a disproportionate number of magicians are involved, the groups are dominated by men, and many members hold religious views that are antagonistic to the paranormal. Despite the name of the organization, actual research is a very low priority of the Committee. In fact, CSICOP instituted a policy against doing research itself. CSICOP’s highest priority has been to influence the media. Its rhetoric and activities are designed to appeal to a broad audience rather than to scientists who investigate unusual or controversial phenomena. Recently, the Committee broadened its focus to include areas outside the paranormal.

Even if you are not sure, do you think it might be wiser to skip CSICOP and find some other investigative journal? (any suggestions? Do you think anyone in PLOS Biology would read this?)
Alternatively, what do you think of the evidence against CSICOP? Should I still send the letter to CSICOP, but refraining from any controversial hints, hoping to slip under the radar? Do you think the open letter policy is sufficient to stop any foul play on the part of the journal?


I smell some dirty politics here. Rembember, my government is 100% illegitimate and based on such corruption and secret pacts. This year I have seen
- deliberate presidential amnesty of the worst imaginable, large-scale industrial bandits who impoverished whole towns (even those on the run returned just a few days before the amnesty, to be included in it)
- Constitutional Court agreement with this mockery of law
- sabotage of the new presidential elections by withholding a candidate's vote sheets
- hundreds of billions worth theft of taxpayer money on overpriced solar energy deals
- hundreds of billions worth theft of state property by the churches in so-called "Church restitutions"
- a private state military service controlled by a Prime Minister's lover. And that's only some of what happened this year. It was much like that here all the years before.
- and of course Barrack Hussein Obama, who wiretapped the whole world, can kill anyone in the world just by pressing a button, who read millions of iPhone users fingerprints and who freakin' tapped the Atlantic internet cable to track all the traffic between USA and Europe. If you still think conspiracies are improbable, you must be daft.

So my tolerance for bullshit is very low. If you tell me I'm paranoid, I'll give you the finger and it won't be this one Thumbsup Dodgy

The tone and content of your letter are not inviting. You do display a little paranoia and presuppositional accusation.

Also, you have not really proposed anything but reviewing things they've already reviewed and debunked, so I don't see them responding the way you hope.

You need to propose something original - an approach, an experiment, a test. Why not ask them to test you?


P.S. The third reference is bullshit, too. Essentially an ad hominem attack.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
23-09-2013, 07:57 PM (This post was last modified: 23-09-2013 08:05 PM by Luminon.)
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
(23-09-2013 07:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  The tone and content of your letter are not inviting. You do display a little paranoia and presuppositional accusation.
I can chill down and erase the controversial points. But is there anything I should add, positively?

(23-09-2013 07:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  Also, you have not really proposed anything but reviewing things they've already reviewed and debunked, so I don't see them responding the way you hope.
Well, they actually didn't. Martin Gardner gave Reich and JDM a bad eternal reputation based on the systematic libel of Joel Carlinsky. But CSICOP has no idea whatsoever of Oldfield, Korotkov, Provod, even Alfred, and most of DeMeo's experiments. They did not review these. If JDM is right, they did not even review Reich, they trusted the known slanderer Carlinsky with all his information. You still think they're competent?

(23-09-2013 07:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  You need to propose something original - an approach, an experiment, a test. Why not ask them to test you?
Because it's besides the point, I want them to test electric field projectors, capacitor rooms, glowing vacuum tubes and other independent phenomena.
And because I don't live in USA, I live in Europe. However, it's a good idea. I am now reading a new book about the brain. Mom says it contains a poster offer at a local military hospital to scan people's brains at an affordable price. She offered to pay for this experience for me.
There is supposed to be a new technology based on a modern neurologic understanding and private research, that reputedly allows even to re-program deep set brain programs like PTSD. If that's so, I'd love to see how it works.
I am in the capital city, but you wouldn't believe how backwards it is in many aspects. This is the first time I hear of any brain scan technologies available for the public, not even a psychologist here had anyone asking such questions.

(23-09-2013 07:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  P.S. The third reference is bullshit, too. Essentially an ad hominem attack.
Well, I'd call it a sociological study Big Grin
But do you think that the openness of a letter is a sufficient... "threat"?

(23-09-2013 07:06 PM)cjlr Wrote:  ... remember when I said that papers marked "it's a conspiracy" will not be graded?

Yeah. This will not be graded.
That's exactly why I'm not asking you. Conspiracy is a natural consequence of business, politics, game theory and human tribalism. Coalition, corporation, alliance, pact, agreement, deal, cartel, oligopoly, collaboration, mutual understanding... and you haven't heard any of these? Man, the skeptics nowadays suck at humanities Rolleyes

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2013, 08:03 PM
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
Yeah, why dont you let yourself tested? If you ever go to usa send the letter to them a few months prior?

KC IS A LIAR!!!! HE PROMISED ME VANILLA CAKES AND GAVE ME STRAWBERRY CAKE Weeping
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2013, 08:03 PM
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
(23-09-2013 07:57 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(23-09-2013 07:06 PM)cjlr Wrote:  ... remember when I said that papers marked "it's a conspiracy" will not be graded?

Yeah. This will not be graded.
That's exactly why I'm not asking you. Conspiracy is a natural consequence of business, politics, game theory and human tribalism.

It's also the thing the scientific method is literally ground-up-designed to pre-empt.

There still need to be means, motive, and opportunity on behalf of the purported conspirators. I see none of them in evidence.

EDIT: and also, fallacy much?

A: conspiracies exist.
B: therefore this conspiracy exists.
NOPE

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2013, 08:08 PM
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
(23-09-2013 07:57 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(23-09-2013 07:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  The tone and content of your letter are not inviting. You do display a little paranoia and presuppositional accusation.
I can chill down and erase the controversial points. But is there anything I should add, positively?

(23-09-2013 07:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  Also, you have not really proposed anything but reviewing things they've already reviewed and debunked, so I don't see them responding the way you hope.
Well, they actually didn't. Martin Gardner gave Reich and JDM a bad eternal reputation based on the systematic libel of Joel Carlinsky. But CSICOP has no idea whatsoever of Oldfield, Korotkov, Provod, even Alfred, and most of DeMeo's experiments. They did not review these. If JDM is right, they did not even review Reich, they trusted the known slanderer Carlinsky with all his information. You still think they're competent?

(23-09-2013 07:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  You need to propose something original - an approach, an experiment, a test. Why not ask them to test you?
Because it's besides the point, I want them to test electric field projectors, capacitor rooms, glowing vacuum tubes and other independent phenomena.
And because I don't live in USA, I live in Europe. However, it's a good idea. I am now reading a new book about the brain. Mom says it contains a poster offer at a local military hospital to scan people's brains at an affordable price. She offered to pay for this experience for me.
There is supposed to be a new technology based on a modern neurologic understanding and private research, that reputedly allows even to re-program deep set brain programs like PTSD. If that's so, I'd love to see how it works.
I am in the capital city, but you wouldn't believe how backwards it is in many aspects. This is the first time I hear of any brain scan technologies available for the public, not even a psychologist here had anyone asking such questions.

(23-09-2013 07:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  P.S. The third reference is bullshit, too. Essentially an ad hominem attack.
Well, I'd call it a sociological study Big Grin
But do you think that the openness of a letter is a sufficient... "threat"?

You are getting your information of CSI (as it is now known) from biased, out-of-date sources.

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/dr._bearden_vacuum_energy

http://www.csicop.org/.../hard_pseudo_sc...e_machine/

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/treatise_o...le_beings/

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2013, 08:53 PM
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
I won't pretend to understand all of what you're talking about in here.

The part that sounds familiar to me is your description of your experience, seeing auras and such, especially with living things.

I've read of one other person who had similar experiences. He saw colors wafting off trees, people, and I think roads, maybe other things as well. He spoke with a neurologist, and underwent an extensive set of experiential tests.

He was diagnosed with smell->sight synesthesia, an uncommon type of an uncommon sensory modality (more "common" is seeing sound, or assigning personality traits to symbols). The colors and auras he saw corresponded with odors, even odors he was not attending to directly.

Now, I know you're a very smart guy, and have probably heard of synesthesia before. Do you think it's possible that your experience has a neuro-sensory explanation? If it could, then parsimony would suggest ruling out that possibility before inferring that the experiences are direct sensing of little-known universal properties.

This page links to a couple of assessments that might indicate whether it's worth asking an expert in person.

Like I said, I know little about the rest. Wilhelm Reich's name is familiar from History of Psychology, and some socialist readings.

If you do decide to send this letter, I hope you get the result you're looking for. Smile

WWMWAZSKDTVQHTMJD?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes I Am's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: